UC-NRLF 


$B    SI    71E 


^^mfm^     .& 


Iw 

^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^9H 

|^^^^^^^^2^^9^^^H^^^^^^HpR 

^^K^9^^^^^^^^^^^^^^3^^^^l 

B 

n 

^^^^^^^^^^H 

oilft  Intorattj}  nf  Qllfirago 


THE  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY 
IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY 

OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND  LITERATURE 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OE  NEW  TESTAMENT  IN  THE 
GRADUATE  DIVnnXY  SCHOOL 


BY 
ALONZO  WILLARD  FORTUNE 

Ji 


Private  Edition,  Distributed  By 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  LIBRARIES 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

1918 


xi^'' 


3>s*;^^T^ 


tD%»  CoUtgf  Kit  ipxtmm 

George  Banta  Pubushino  Company 
Menasha,  Wisconsin 


:?:::' 


CONTENTS 

Pagb 

INTRODUCTION 1 

CHAPTER  I.    PAUL'S  APOSTLESHIP 7 

Claims  to  be  an  Apostle 7 

His  Rights  and  Authority  as  an  Apostle .'. 15 

CHAPTER  II.    DOCTRINAL  ELEMENTS  IN  PAUL'S  WRITINGS 21 

God 21 

Man  and  his  World 26 

Christology 32 

The  Christ  of  Faith 32 

The  Historical  Jesus 35     . 

The  death  of  Christ 40 

The  pre-existent  Christ 51 

The  Christof  the  Future  Age .' 57 

The  New  Life 60 

Future  Things 67 

The  progress  of  the  gospel 67 

The  new  age 74 

CHAPTER  III.    PROBLEMS   RESULTING  FROM  THE    PREACHING 

OF  THE  GOSPEL  TO  THE  GENTILES 83  ^ 

The  Relation  of  the  Law  to  the  Gospel 83  ^ 

The  Christian's  Relation  to  Idolatry 94 

CHAPTER  IV.    SUBJECTS  CONNECTED  WITH  THE  CHURCH 102  " 

What  the  Church  is 102 

The  Ordinances  of  the  Church 106 

Baptism 106 

The  Lord's  Supper 112 

The  Worship  of  the  Church 117 

Spiritual  Gifts 118 

Conduct  of  Women  in  the  Meetings 123 

Church  Discipline 126 

Offerings  for  the  Poor  at  Jerusalem 129 

CHAPTER  V.    THE  LIFE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  IN  THE  WORLD 135 

The  Christian  in  his  Relation  to  Marriage 135 

The  Christian's  Relation  to  Slavery 140 

The  Christian's  Relation  to  the  State 143 

CHAPTER  VI.    IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SOURCES  FROM  WHICH  PAUL 

DERIVED  TRUTH 146 

Paul's  Estimate  of  Experience 146 

The  Relation  of  Experience  to  his  Jewish  Inheritance 162 

The  Relation  of  Experience  to  the  Life  and  Thought  of  the  Medi- 
terranean WORLD 171 

The  Relation  of  Experience  to  the  Life  and  Thought  of  the  Church 

into  which  he  entered 176 

CONCLUSION 180 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 182 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/conceptionofauthOOfortrich 


INTRODUCTION 
Importance  of  the  Study 

There  is  no  more  important  subject  in  the  field  of  religious  thought 
than  the  one  which  relates  to  authority.  This  subject  is  important 
because  of  its  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  religion.  The  con- 
ception which  one  has  of  authority  determines  to  a  marked  degree  what 
religion  means  to  him,  and  when  the  basis  of  his  religious  authority 
is  shifted  his  idea  of  religion  must  be  readjusted.  Authority  might  be 
defined  as  **that  which  is  or  may  be  appealed  to  in  support  of  action 
or  opinion,"^  and  according  to  that  definition,  rehgious  authority  is 
that  which  is  or  may  be  appealed  to  in  support  of  action  or  opinion  in 
matters  pertaining  to  religion. 

In  determining  what  shall  be  the  basis  of  our  own  rehgious  author- 
ity, it  is  necessary  to  study  the  subject  in  the  light  of  its  historical 
development,  and  to  do  this,  we  must  begin  with  a  careful  and  critical 
examination  of  the  position  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  and  of  Paul 
in  particular.  While  Jesus  was  the^founder  of  Christianity  it  was  Paul 
who  led  in  the  organization  of  the  church,  and  because  of  his  writings, 
he  has  exerted  a  tremendous  influence  on  the  thinking  of  all  the  succeed- 
ing centuries.  A  study  of  Paul's  conception  of  authority  is  interesting, 
not  merely  from  a  historical  point  of  view,  but  also  because  it  helps  us 
in  our  effort  to  find  a  vital  basis  for  our  religion. 

Writings  Accepted  as  Pauline 
Fortunately  for  us  several  of  Paul's  writings  have  been  preserved, 
and  by  means  of  these  we  are  able  to  form  a  fairly  accurate  opinion 
of  what  his  thought  was.  In  this  discussion  the  following  writings 
will  be  used  as  the  ones  which  express  Paul's  thought:  I  Thessalo- 
nians,  Galatians,  I  Corinthians,  II  Corinthians,  Romans,  Philippians 
and  Philemon.  These  will  be  used  because  the  scholarship  of  our  day  is 
almost  universally  agreed  that  they  are  Pauline.  There  is  a  tendency 
at  the  present  time  to  take  a  more  conservative  position  than  was 
commonly  held  a  decade  ago  on  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  entire 
group  of  letters  which  bears  his  name.  There  are  thirteen  letters  to 
which  the  name  of  Paul  is  attached,  but  the  genuineness  of  some  of 
these  has  been  questioned  by  prominent  scholars.  Some  writers  have 
regarded  all  these  letters  as  spurious  and  have  insisted  that  they  belong 

^  See  New  Standard  Dictionary. 


2      -'•  '^  -  ^CdHCEFnON  O*!  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

to  a  later  time.  There  is  little  ground,  however,  for  such  a  position 
and  most  scholars  do  not  take  seriously  the  contentions  of  those  who 
hold  to  it.  The  weight  of  scholarship  for  the  genuineness  of  the  group 
named  above  is  so  overwhelming  that  they  can  be  accepted,  without 
further  discussion,  as  the  basis  of  this  treatise. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles  undoubtedly  contain  much  Pauline  material, 
but  it  is  now  conceded  by  the  majority  of  New  Testament  scholars  that 
in  their  present  form  they  are  not  Pauline.^  Many  still  question  the 
Pauhne  authorship  of  Colossians,  although  there  is  a  growing  tendency 
in  favor  of  its  genuineness.^  A  larger  number  doubt  the  Pauline  author- 
ship of  Ephesians  and  II  Thessalonians,  although  some  who  had  formerly 
rejected  these  books  are  now  writing  in  their  defense.'^  These  letters, 
the  Pauline  authorship  of  which  has  been  questioned  by  many,  may  well 
be  neglected  in  this  discussion,  and  no  great  loss  will  be  sustained  as 
there  is  little  additional  material  which  they  would  contribute. 
Significance  of  Paul's  Writings  for  a  Study  of  his  Conception  of 

Authority 

The  material  furnished  by  PauPs  letters  is  well  adapted  to  a  study 
of  his  conception  of  authority,  as  these  letters  were  written  to  meet 
specific  needs  in  the  churches,  and  these  needs  called  for  definite  and 
positive  statements.  There  were  controversies  over  matters  of  faith 
and  conduct,  and  Paul  sought  to  settle  these.  He  had  been  asked 
definite  questions  pertaining  to  the  Christian  life,  and  he  answered 
these  and  gave  his  reasons  for  answering  them  as  he  did.  While  Paul 
did  not  directly  discuss  the  problem  of  authority  in  any  of  his  letters, 
yet  his  own  conception  of  authority  is  reflected  in  each  of  them.  He 
did  not  write  as  a  theologian  to  give  the  church  a  systematic  state- 
ment of  doctrine;  but  being  first  of  all  a  missionary,  he  wrote  for  a 
missionary  purpose.  His  letters  were  occasioned  by  real  situations, 
and  they  were  based  upon  experience,  and  a  brief  statement  of  the  cir- 

2  For  a  brief  statement  of  some  of  the  most  prominent  writers  see  James  Moffatt, 
Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  1911,  pp.  414  ff. 

3  For  a  concise  statement  of  the  position  of  scholarship  see  James  Moffatt,  Intro- 
duction to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  1911,  pp.  153  ff. 

*  James  Moffatt  thinks  Ephesians  was  probably  "a  catholicized  version  of  Colos- 
sians, written  in  Paul's  name  to  Gentile  Christendom  {Introduction  to  the  Literature  of 
the  New  Testament,  1911,  p.  393),  but  in  regard  to  II  Thessalonians  he  says:  "For  all 
the  difficulties  of  the  episde,  it  is  fair  to  say  that  ahnost  every  one  of  the  features 
which  seem  to  portray  another  physiognomy  from  that  of  Paul,  can  be  explained, 
without  straining  the  evidence,  upon  the  hypothesis  that  he  wrote  the  epistle  him- 
self" {Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  1911,  p.  79). 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  3 

cumstances  which  produced  them  will  reveal  their  practical  character 
and  will  also  prepare  the  way  for  the  further  discussion. 

/  Thessalonians 
Paul  left  Thessalonica  under  circumstances  which  made  him  anxious 
about  the  welfare  of  the  Christian  community  which  he  had  gathered 
together  in  that  city.  This  anxiety  prompted  him  to  send  Timothy  from 
Athens  back  to  Thessalonica  while  he  himself  went  on  to  Corinth  (I 
Thess.  3:1  ff.)-  Timothy  joined  Paul  at  Corinth,  and  it  appears  that  he 
reported  that  although  the  Thessalonians  were  being  persecuted,  they 
had  remained  true  to  the  faith  and  were  loyal  to  Paul.  He  also  reported 
that  some  of  them  were  troubled  about  the  fate  of  those  of  their  num- 
ber who  had  died.  In  the  light  of  this  report  Paul  wrote  his  letter, 
and  it  is  a  practical  discussion  of  these  problems. 

Galatians 
The  question  whether  Galatians  was  intended  for  the  small  district 
which  was  the  ancient  kingdom  of  Galatia,  or  for  the  larger  group  of 
churches  in  the  Roman  province  of  Galatia,  is  not  vital  in  this  discus- 
sion, as  the  circumstances  which  led  Paul  to  write  it  would  be  the  same 
in  either  case.  Judaizers  had  followed  Paul  and  had  taught  his  Gentile 
converts  that  it  was  necessary  for  them  to  keep  the  law  in  order  to  be 
saved.  They  taught  that  faith  in  Christ  was  not  sufficient,  for  in 
addition  to  that,  the  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies  must  be  kept.  Many 
of  the  Galatians  were  disturbed  and  even  carried  away  by  this  teaching, 
and  the  church  was  in  confusion.  Paul  wrote  the  epistle  to  win  them 
back  and  estabhsh  them  in  the  true  faith,  and  because  of  the  circum- 
stances, he  was  very  definite  in  his  statements. 

The  Corinthian  Letters 
There  has  been  much  discussion  over  the  number  of  letters  which 
Paul  wrote  to  Corinth,  and  over  the  component  parts  of  II  Corinthians. 
It  is  evident  that  he  wrote  a  letter  to  this  church  before  the  one  which 
is  designated  as  I  Corinthians  (see  I  Cor.  5:9  ff.),  and  it  is  quite  probable 
that  II  Corinthians  is  a  compilation  of  at  least  two  letters.  But  inas- 
much as  I  Corinthians  and  II  Corinthians  are  almost  universally  accepted 
as  letters,  or  compilation  of  letters,  written  by  Paul  to  the  church  at 
Coriiith,  any  further  discussion  of  the  relation  between  these  docu- 
ments would  not  be  germane  to  this  treatise. 


4  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Paul  was  probably  in  Ephesus  when  he  was  informed  by  "them  of 
Chloe"  (I  Cor.  1:11)  concerning  the  condition  of  the  church  in  Corinth. 
It  was  reported  that  there  were  divisions  among  the  Christians,  and 
that  there  was  fornication  in  the  church.  It  was  stated  that  Chris- 
tians carried  their  difficulties  into  the  courts,  and  that  there  was  a 
general  tendency  to  immorahty.  Paul  had  also  received  a  letter  from 
the  church  (I  Cor.  7:1),  and  it  is  quite  likely  that  this  letter  was  brought 
by  Stephanas,  Fortunatus,  and  Achaicus  (I  Cor.  16:17).  It  is  apparent 
that  this  letter  contained  a  number  of  questions  which  troubled  the 
Christians  at  Corinth.  They  asked  him  about  various  phases  of  the 
marriage  relation:  whether  it  was  advisable  for  a  Christian  to  marry, 
and  if  he  should  marry  whether  he  was  permitted  to  select  a  heathen 
for  his  companion;  what  should  be  the  Christian's  attitude  towards 
sexual  relations,  divorce,  the  marrying  of  virgins,  and  the  remarriage 
of  widows.  They  undoubtedly  asked  him  concerning  the  eating  of 
meats  which  had  been  sacrificed  to  idols,  and  the  conduct  of  their  wor- 
ship, especially  as  it  related  to  spiritual  gifts.  It  is  quite  probable 
that  they  also  asked  him  about  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the 
collection  for  the  poor  at  Jerusalem.  Perhaps  the  three  messengers 
confirmed  the  statement  made  by  "them  of  Chloe"  concerning  the 
evils,  and  also  explained  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  the  ques- 
tions contained  in  the  letter.  Paul  wrote  I  Corinthians  to  correct 
these  evils  and  to  answer  the  practical  questions  put  to  him. 

What  is  contained  in  our  II  Corinthians  was  written  to  meet  the 
situation  which  developed  after  the  reception  of  I  Corinthians.  These 
letters  are  especially  valuable  for  the  study  of  Paul's  conception  of 
authority,  for  they  were  written  to  help  to  solve  specific  problems  and 
to  answer  definite  questions,  and  he  expressed  himself  in  unmistakable 
language. 

Romans 
It  is  not  necessary,  in  this  connection,  to  discuss  the  original  destina- 
tion of  the  last  chapter  of  Romans,  as  it  contains  but  little  that  would 
throw  any  light  on  the  subject  under  consideration.  Paul  was  in 
Corinth,  and  as  he  had  preached  the  gospel  in  all  the  great  centers  of 
the  eastern  part  of  the  Roman  Empire,  he  was  thinking  about  going 
to  the  West  in  search  of  new  territory.  His  plan  was  to  go  to  Spain 
after  making  a  visit  to  Jerusalem,  and  he  was  anxious  to  stop  in  Rome 
on  the  way.  He  was  troubled  lest  the  campaign  of  the  Judaizers  should 
extend  to  Rome,  and  he  was  anxious  that  the  right  type  of  Christianity 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  5 

should  prevail  in  the  world's  capital  city,  hence  to  instruct  them  and  to 
prepare  for  the  visit  which  he  was  longing  to  make,  he  wrote  this  letter. 
Romans  is  not  a  complete  and  systematic  statement  of  Paul's  doc- 
trine, but  it  contains  a  very  full  discussion  of  some  subjects  which  were 
vital  in  his  thinking,  and  consequently  it  is  a  valuable  source  for  the 
study  of  his  notion  of  authority. 

Philemon  and  Philippians 

It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  into  a  lengthy  discussion  of  the  place 
from  which  Paul  wrote  these  two  short  letters,  or  of  the  question  whether 
Philippians  was  originally  one  document  or  two.^  Inasmuch  as  these 
letters  are  generally  accepted  as  PauHne,  and  the  circumstances  which 
gave  rise  to  them  would  be  the  same  whether  they  were  written  from 
Caesarea  or  from  Rome,  these  problems  can  be  passed  over. 

While  Paul  was  in  prison,  Onesimus,  who  was  a  runaway-slave, 
belonging  to  a  Christian  in  Colossae  by  the  name  of  Philemon,  had  come 
under  his  influence  and  had  become  a  Christian.  Paul  sent  him  back 
to  his  master,  and  he  also  wrote  a  brief  letter  to  Philemon,  urging  him 
to  receive  his  slave  who  had  become  a  servant  of  Christ.  Inasmuch 
as  this  letter  reflects  Paul's  convictions  in  regard  to  the  right  relationship 
between  master  and  servant,  it  throws  some  Hght  on  his  idea  of  authority. 

While  Paul  was  in  prison,  Epaphroditus  brought  him  gifts  from  the 
Christians  at  Philippi  and  ministered  to  him  in  their  behalf.  When 
Epaphroditus  returned  home  he  carried  with  him  a  letter  to  the  church, 
and  while  it  is  more  personal  in  character  than  any  of  the  rest  of  Paul's 
letters,  it  contains  the  discussion  of  some  questions  and  problems  which 
reflects  his  conception  of  authority. 

Development  of  Paul's  Thought 
As  is  stated  above,  Paul  wrote  as  a  missionary  and  not  as  a  theolo- 
gian, and  his  letters  should  be  studied  with  that  purpose  in  mind.     His 
letters  were  written  to  correct  errors  and  to  give  needed  instruction, 

^  Bemhard  Weiss  (Lehrbmh  der  Einleitimg  in  das  Neue  Testament,  1897,  pp. 
236  ff.)  and  Carl  Clemen  (Die  Chronologie  der  paulinischen  Briefe  aufs  neue  Unter- 
sucht,  1893,  pp.  249  ff.)  maintain  that  Philemon  was  written  during  the  imprison- 
ment at  Caesarea.  O.  Holtzmann  (Theologische  Litteratungzeitung,  1890,  p.  177) 
and  Friedrich  Spitta  (Apostelgeschichte  ihre  Quellen  und  der  Geschichtlicher  Wert, 
1891,  p.  281)  think  it  most  probable  that  Philippians  was  written  during  the  Caesarean 
imprisonment,  while  Carl  Clemen  {Die  Chronologie  der  paidinischen  Briefe  aufs  neue 
Untersucht,  1893,  p.  197)  believes  it  is  composed  of  two  original  documents,  the  first 
having  been  written  at  Caesarea,  and  the  second  at  Rome. 


6  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

and  in  them  his  own  thoughts  and  feehngs  at  the  time  were  expressed. 
His  thought  undoubtedly  developed  under  the  influence  of  new  situa- 
tions, but  it  is  not  likely  that  there  is  as  much  development  in  his  writ- 
ings as  some  would  have  us  believe.  A  marked  development  in  his 
writings  should  not  be  expected,  inasmuch  as  they  all  fall  within  a 
period  of  fifteen  or  eighteen  years,  and  the  first  letter  was  not  written 
for  about  that  length  of  time  after  his  conversion,  and  his  Christian 
thought  had  already  become  quite  definitely  formulated. 

The  occasion  which  led  Paul  to  write  a  given  letter  naturally  gave 
it  a  pecuHar  character,  and  when  conditions  changed,  as  they  sometimes 
did  very  rapidly  because  of  controversies,  his  thought  was  undoubtedly 
changed  by  the  new  situation. 

Method  of  Procedure 

After  making  a  careful  study  of  the  writings  accepted  as  Pauline, 
a  selection  has  been  made  of  the  most  important  subjects  which  are 
discussed  in  these  writings.  A  study  is  made  of  each  of  these  subjects 
to  determine  the  sources  from  which  Paul  derived  what  he  regarded  as 
truth.  This  study  is  arranged  under  five  different  heads:  his  apostle- 
ship,  the  doctrinal  elements  in  his  writings,  the  problems  arising  out 
of  the  establishment  of  Christianity  in  the  Gentile  world,  the  church, 
and  the  life  of  the  Christian  in  the  world.  In  each  of  these  five  chapters 
there  is  a  brief  statement  of  Paul's  teaching  on  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration, and  then  an  attempt  is  made  to  determine  the  sources  which 
influenced  him  in  forming  his  conceptions.  The  writer's  purpose  in 
these  chapters  is  to  ascertain  the  sources  from  which  Paul  believed  he 
could  derive  truth,  and  to  which  he  felt  appeal  could  be  made  in  support 
of  action  or  opinion. 

The  last  chapter  is  a  discussion  of  the  various  sources  from  which 
Paul  either  consciously  or  unconsciously  derived  what  he  accepted  as 
truth,  and  the  purpose  in  this  part  of  the  discussion  is  to  determine  the 
relation  of  these  sources  to  each  other  and  their  relative  value  for  Paul. 
The  rest  of  the  treatise  furnishes  the  basis  for  the  quest  of  this  last 
chapter,  which  is  to  find  the  standard  by  which  Paul  estimated  truth, 
for  such  a  standard,  whether  he  realized  it  or  not,  was  for  him  ultimate 
authority. 


CHAPTER  I 

PAUL'S  APOSTLESHIP 

Claims  to  be  an  Apostle 

Statement  of  his  Position 

Paul's  defense  of  his  apostleship  furnishes  a  good  opportunity  to 
study  his  conception  of  the  nature  and  basis  of  what  was  for  him  author- 
ity in  rehgion,  and  what  he  beUeved  he  had  a  right  to  insist  on  as  author- 
ity for  others.  His  apostleship  had  not  been  called  in  question  in 
Thessalonica  when  he  wrote  I  Thessalonians,  hence  no  defense  of  it  is 
made  in  this  letter.  He  did  not  even  designate  himself  as  an  apostle, 
but  he  began  the  letter  with  the  simple  greeting — "Paul  and  Silvanus 
and  Timothy  unto  the  church  of  the  Thessalonians."  The  situation 
was  very  different  in  Galatia.  Judaizing  teachers,  in  order  that  they 
might  more  successfully  oppose  Paul's  gospel,  had  questioned  his  apos- 
tolic authority.  Paul  knew  his  labors  in  Galatia  would  end  in  failure, 
if  there  was  any  doubt  in  the  minds  of  those  whom  he  had  led  to  Christ 
about  his  being  an  apostle;  hence  in  his  letter  to  these  churches  he 
vigorously  defended  his  apostleship.  Even  the  greeting  is  significant — 
"Paul,  an  apostle,  not  from  men,  neither  through  man,  but  through 
Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father,  who  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

Paul  was  confronted  by  the  same  situation  in  Corinth  that  he  had 
to  overcome  in  Galatia.  There  were  those  who  sought  to  undermine 
his  work,  and,  in  their  opposition  to  him,  they  maintained  that  he  was 
not  an  apostle.  It  seems  that  there  was  some  one  who  was  a  leader 
in  the  Corinthian  Church  that  strenuously  opposed  the  apostle  Paul 
(n  Cor.  2:5-11;  7:11,  12),  and  that  certain  persons,  who  perhaps  con- 
stituted the  Christ-party,  denied  that  he  was  an  apostle.  Those  who 
constituted  this  latter  class  insisted  that  they  belonged  to  Christ  in 
a  sense  in  which  Paul  did  not  (II  Cor.  10:7;  11:23).^    Paul  asserted 

^  Many  writers  hold  that  there  was  not  a  separate  party  in  Corinth  called  the 
Christ-party.  Some  believe  €70?  Se  xpto^ToO  in  I  Cor.  1:12  is  antithetical  to  the  other 
phrases  rather  than  co-ordinate  with  them.  According  to  this  theory  the  passage 
should  read:  "Now  this  I  mean  that  each  says  'I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  ApoUos,  and 
I  of  Cephas' — but  I  am  of  Christ."  That  is  the  position  of  Rabiger  in  Kritische 
U titer suchungen  iiber  den  Inhalt  der  beiden  Briefen  an  die  Korinthische  Gemeinde, 
second  edition,  1886.  Klirsopp  Lake  recognizes  that  there  are  objections  to  this  view, 
but  he  thinks  it  is  the  most  reasonable  interpretation  that  has  been  given  (See  The 
Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  pp.  127  f.).  Other  writers  think  e^tb  8k  xp'^tov  is  an 
interpolation.    That  is  the  position  of  J.  Weiss  in  Der  Erste  Korinther  Brief,  1910. 


8  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

his  apostleship  in  the  greetings  in  both  I  Corinthians  and  II  Corinthians, 
and  he  defended  this  claim  throughout  the  letters. 

Paul  had  not  been  in  Rome  at  the  time  when  Romans  was  written, 
and  it  is  not  probable  that  any  campaign  had  been  waged  against  him  in 
that  community,  hence  he  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  defend  his  apos- 
tleship in  that  letter.  The  fact,  however,  that  his  apostleship  had  been 
questioned  in  other  communities  led  him  to  assert  it  in  the  greeting. 

The  church  at  Philippi  was  always  loyal  to  Paul,  and  there  was  no 
occasion  for  a  defense  of  his  apostleship,  or  even  a  reference  to  it,  in 
his  letter  to  that  church.  He  did  not  feel  called  upon  to  make  any 
reference  to  his  apostolic  claim  in  his  personal  letter  to  Philemon, 
but  merely  referred  to  himself  as  *'a  prisoner  of  the  Lord  Jesus. " 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Twelve  recognised  Paul  as  an  apostle 
on  an  equality  with  themselves;  at  least  it  does  not  seem  that  they 
ever  formally  gave  him  this  recognition.  In  defending  himself  against 
the  attacks  of  the  Judaizers,  Paul  never  claimed  the  support  of  the 
Twelve,  and  it  is  quite  probable  he  would  have  done  so  had  they  form- 
ally recognized  his  apostolic  authority,  for  this  would  have  been  the 
strongest  argument  he  could  have  used  against  his  objectors.  He  did 
say  the  leaders  at  Jerusalem  gave  to  him  and  Barnabas  "the  right  hand 
of  fellowship,"  commending  them  to  the  work  among  the  Gentiles;  but 
that  seems  to  have  been  as  far  as  they  went  in  the  matter. 

A  careful  study  of  the  four  great  epistles  must  convince  one  that 
while  there  were  those  who  denied  Paul's  apostleship,  he  regarded 
himself  as  an  apostle  with  the  same  authority  as  the  others.  He  de- 
clared he  was  not  self-appointed,  but  that  he  had  a  divine  commission 
for  his  work.  He  had  been  made  an  apostle,  not  by  men,  but  by  Jesus 
Christ  and  God  the  Father  (Gal.  1 :1 ;  I  Cor.  1 :1 ;  II  Cor.  1 :1 ;  Rom.  1 :5). 

The  Basis  of  his  Claim 

In  the  discussion  of  his  apostolic  appointment,  Paul  made  his  own 
Christian  experience  fundamental.  He  was  absolutely  certain  that  he 
was  an  apostle  and  that  he  had  been  divinely  commissioned,  and  this 
conviction  was  the  result  of  his  own  personal  experience.  Experience 
is  a  comprehensive  term  because  everything  which  touches  life  may  be 
included  under  it,  but  it  has  different  aspects,  and  our  present  problem 
is  to  make  a  study  of  these  to  determine  the  sources  from  which  Paul 
derived  the  elements  which  became  a  part  of  his  experience.  There 
were  two  aspects  of  the  experience  upon  which  he  based  his  apostolic 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  9 

claim:  one  was  in  connection  with  his  conversion,  and  the  other  with 

his  missionary  activities. 

a.  His  conversion-experiences. 

Paul  believed  he  had  passed  through  a  real  and  vital  experience 
at  the  beginning  of  his  Christian  life,  and  it  was  this  which  separated 
him  from  Judaism  and  committed  him  to  the  new  faith.  He  also 
believed  it  was  in  connection  with  this  experience,  which  we  call  con- 
version, that  he  received  his  apostolic  commission, 
(a).  His  conversion  a  revelation  of  Christ  in  him. 

Paul  said  God  called  him  through  his  grace  to  reveal  his  Son  in 
him,  and  the  purpose  of  this  revelation  was  that  he  might  preach  him 
among  the  Gentiles.  It  is  evident  from  what  follows  that  Paul  was 
thinking  of  a  very  definite  experience  when  he  referred  to  God's  re- 
vealing his  Son  in  him,  and  this  came  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  Chris- 
tian career,  for  immediately  after  the  statement  about  the  revelation, 
he  said:  ''Straightway  I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood:  neither 
went  I  up  to  Jerusalem  to  them  that  were  apostles  before  me:  but  I 
went  into  Arabia"  (Gal.  1 :16,  17).  Paul  frequently  referred  to  an  expe- 
rience which  was  paramount  to  all  others,  and  it  must  have  been  in 
connection  with  his  conversion.  At  this  time  Christ  laid  hold  upon 
him  (Phil.  3:12),  and  this  laying  hold  was  in  a  forceful  and  violent 
manner,  for  he  likened  his  entrance  into  the  Christian  life  to  that  of 
a  child  that  had  been  abortively  born  (I  Cor.  15:5-10).  Paul  felt  that 
inasmuch  as  God  had  laid  hold  upon  him  and  had  compelled  him  to 
become  a  follower  of  Christ,  there  must  have  been  a  divine  purpose  in 
what  he  was  doing,  and  that  purpose  was  to  make  him  Christ's  ambassa- 
dor. Paul  preached  because  necessity  had  been  laid  upon  him  (I  Cor. 
9:16).  He  was  an  apostle,  not  because  he  had  sought  the  position,  nor 
because  he  had  been  appointed  by  men,  but  because  Christ  had  com- 
missioned him.  This  experience,  which  Paul  interpreted  as  a  revelation 
of  Christ  in  him,  and  which  he  believed  was  his  call  to  be  an  apostle, 
was  something  that  was  very  definite  in  his  thinking,  and  it  was  so  vital 
that  it  was  for  him  authoritative.  Paul  believed  this  was  something 
which  came  into  his  life  suddenly  and  that  it  completely  transformed 
him.  Up  to  this  time  he  had  regarded  Jesus  as  an  impostor  and  had 
persecuted  his  followers;  but  from  the  time  of  this  experience,  he  con- 
sidered Jesus  his  Master  and  was  devoted  to  his  cause.  Regardless  of 
what  the  outward  circumstances  may  have  been,  it  is  evident  that  Paul 
beUeved  he  had  come  into  possession  of  a  new  power  and  that  his  life 
had  been  transformed  and  his  religious  thinking  had  been  changed.    He 


10  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

thought  of  himself  as  one  who  had  died  and  had  been  raised  to  life 
again.  Old  things  had  passed  away,  and  all  things  had  become  new. 
What  he  had  once  counted  as  great  gain,  he  now  counted  as  dross.  Paul 
beUeved  he  had  frequent  visions  and  revelations  and  that  these  were 
given  to  guide  him  in  the  great  crises  of  Ufe.  It  was  by  revelation 
that  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  confer  with  the  other  apostles  about 
circumcision  (Gal.  2:2).  But  he  regarded  the  revelation  which  made 
him  an  apostle  as  different  from  any  of  these;  it  turned  his  life  into  new 
channels.  After  that  revelation  he  began  to  preach  the  faith  which  he 
had  been  zealous  to  destroy.  In  this  conversion-experience  God  had 
revealed  his  Son  in  him.  At  this  time  he  had  seen  the  glory  of  God 
shining  in  the  face  of  Christ  (II  Cor.  4:6). 

We  are  not  concerned  in  this  connection  with  a  psychological  expla- 
nation of  Paul's  conversion-experience.^  Regardless  of  the  theories 
which  may  be  advanced  to  explain  the  change  in  Paul's  life,  or  of  what 
the  facts  actually  were,  it  is  evident  that  he  believed  he  had  seen  Jesus 
(I  Cor.  9:1),  and  he  also  beheved  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  him  was  as 
real  as  it  had  been  to  the  other  disciples  (I  Cor.  9:1;  15:5-8).  Paul 
did  not  regard  his  vision  of  Christ  as  an  optical  illusion.  The  word 
used  in  I  Cor.  15:8  i&cpdrj)  is  the  same  which  occurs  in  Lk.  24:34  in  con- 
nection with  Christ's  appearance  to  Peter.  Paul  undoubtedly  believed 
he  had  seen  Jesus,  and  he  was  certain  that  this  appearance  was  for  the 
purpose  of  making  him  an  apostle, 
(b).  The  revelation  of  Christ,  the  possession  of  his  gospel. 

Paul  said  he  did  not  receive  his  gospel  from  man  ''  but  it  came  through 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ"  (Gal.  1:12).  The  reason  Paul  connected 
the  revelation  of  Christ  in  him  with  his  call  to  be  an  apostle  was  the 
conviction  that  it  furnished  him  his  gospel,  and  the  possession  of  his 
gospel  was  his  call  to  preach  it.  To  his  mind  his  message  and  his  apos- 
tleship  were  inseparable.  He  knew  the  gospel  which  he  preached 
was  from  God  (I  Thess.  2:2,  8),  and  the  fact  that  God  had  entrusted  the 
gospel  to  him  was  sufficient  proof  to  his  mind  that  he  had  divine  approval 
(I  Thess.  2:4). 

«W.  Wrede  {PauLus,  1907,  pp.  17  f.,  EngHsh  translation,  1908,  p.  22  f.)  maintains 
that  Paul  was  of  a  morbid  temperament,  and  that  he  was  quite  likely  subject  to  epi- 
leptic fits,  and  that  his  conversion  is  to  be  explained  in  the  light  of  these  conditions. 
Other  writers  hold  to  this  or  similar  theories.  F.  C.  Conybeare  {Myth,  Magic  and 
Morals,  1910,  p.  4;  also  appendix,  p.  363)  asserts  that  this  explains  not  only  Paul's  con- 
version, but  his  other  visions  and  revelations  as  well. 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  11 

Paul's  statement  in  the  letter  to  the  Galatians  that  the  gospel  which 
he  preached  was  ''not  after  man,"  for  he  did  not  receive  it  from  man, 
nor  was  he  taught  it,  "but  it  came  through  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ," 
is  open  to  different  interpretations.  Did  Paul  mean  to  be  understood 
as  saying  that  in  his  conversion-experience  there  had  been  revealed  to 
him  all  the  historical  data  which  he  possessed  concerning  Jesus,  or 
did  he  mean  to  state  that  these  had  been  made  known  to  him  in  the 
visions  of  later  years?  Or  did  he  mean  something  entirely  different?' 
It  is  not  probable  that  Paul  meant  to  state  that  he  had  received  through 
revelation  the  historical  data  concerning  Jesus,  for  he  had  many  oppor- 
tunities to  know  these  from  other  sources.  Paul  was  not  arguing  in 
the  Galatian  letter  that  he  did  not  have  opportunity  to  learn  from  men 
the  story  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  for  he  said  he  was  with  Peter  fifteen  days, 
and  that  would  have  furnished  ample  opportunity  to  go  over  the  story 
repeatedly.  It  seems  very  probable  that  one  of  the  motives  which 
took  him  to  Jerusalem  at  that  time  was  to  hear  from  Peter  the  story 
about  Jesus.  What  Paul  was  insisting  on  was  that  no  apostohc  coun- 
cil was  called  to  take  action  on  his  apostleship.  He  went  up  to  Jerusalem 
after  three  years,  but  his  purpose  was  to  have  a  friendly  interview  with 
Peter,  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles  were  not  connected  with  the  visit 
in  any  way.  He  said  he  saw  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  but  his  reference 
to  his  meeting  with  him  would  indicate  that  it  was  incidental  and  had 
no  significance  in  connection  with  his  visit  at  Jerusalem.  Paul  insisted 
that  the  gospel  which  he  preached  among  the  Galatians  was  divine,  for 
he  had  received  it  through  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  this  revelation 
was  not  a  disclosing  of  the  historical  data,  and  as  will  be  indicated 
later,  these  were  merely  incidental  in  his  message. 

It  is  not  probable  that  Paul  meant  to  affirm  that  he  had  received 
through  revelation  the  whole  system  of  doctrine  he  was  to  preach.  The 
revelation  of  Christ,  which  was  the  basis  of  Paul's  gospel,  revolutionized 
his  religious  thinking,  and  it  required  some  time  for  him  to  readjust 
himseK  to  this  new  experience.  He  said  that  after  God  had  revealed 
his  Son  in  him,  he  went  straightway  into  Arabia  (Gal.  1 :15-17),  and  there 

'  F.  C.  Conybeare  {Myth,  Magic  and  Morals,  1910,  pp.  251  S.)  says  Paul  meant 
to  state  that  the  historical  data  concerning  the  life  of  Jesus  had  been  made  known 
to  him  in  visions  and  revelations.  He  argues  at  length  that  Paul  insisted  that  he  did 
not  receive  the  story  of  the  Ufe  of  Jesus  from  men,  but  that  it  came  through  "visions 
and  private  revelations  of  his  own. "  He  says  Paul's  gospel,  and  by  this  he  means 
the  historical  statements  concerning  the  life  of  Jesus,  "had  nothing  to  do  with  what 
the  companions  of  Jesus  remembered  of  their  Master's  life  and  conversations." 


12  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

has  been  much  discussion  about  the  purpose  of  this  visit.  Some  recent 
writers  hold  that  Paul  meant  to  affirm  that  as  soon  as  he  had  received 
his  revelation  he  went  into  Arabia  and  began  his  missionary  career.* 
Paul  may  have  done  some  preaching  in  Arabia,  but  he  was  not  ready  to 
preach  immediately  after  his  conversion-experience.  He  was  a  thinker, 
and  before  he  could  begin  his  missionary  activities  it  was  necessary  for 
him  to  have  a  consistent  gospel.  The  basis  of  this  gospel  was  the  revela- 
tion of  Christ  in  him,  and  one  purpose  for  his  going  into  Arabia  must 
have  been  to  have  an  opportunity  to  study  the  whole  subject  of  religion 
in  the  light  of  this  revelation.  When  Paul  had  adjusted  his  idea  of 
religion  to  his  new  experience  he  had  his  message,  and  he  was  then 
ready  to  preach  it. 

Through  the  revelation  that  was  made  to  him  Paul  became  convinced 
that  Jesus,  instead  of  being  an  impostor,  was  in  reality  the  Messiah. 
He  became  convinced  that  the  one  who  had  died  upon  the  cross  was  still 
living  and  was  his  Lord,  and  that  he  was  the  one  to  whom  all  men  owed 
allegiance,  and  that  they  could  be  saved  through  faith  in  him.  This 
was  his  gospel,  and  the  revelation  of  this  truth  was  his  call  from  God 
to  proclaim  it,  and  when  he  had  readjusted  his  thinking  to  this  revela- 
tion he  was  ready  for  his  work.  Paul  could  say  he  did  not  receive 
his  gospel  from  men,  for  Christ  was  the  center  of  his  gospel,  and  he 
beheved  it  was  through  revelation  that  he  had  come  to  know  Christ. 
Paul's  enemies  tried  to  undermine  his  work  by  questioning  his  apostle- 
ship.  They  insisted  that  inasmuch  as  he  was  not  one  of  the  group  that 
had  been  selected  by  Christ,  and  he  had  not  even  been  set  apart  by  this 
original  group,  he  had  no  right  to  claim  apostolic  authority.  Paul  met 
this  criticism  by  insisting  that  he  was  not  behind  the  pillar  apostles, 
for  Christ  had  appeared  to  him  and  had  given  him  his  commission.  He 
said  he  did  not  need  appointment  by  the  other  apostles,  and  he  virtual- 

*  Elirsopp  Lake  thinks  it  quite  probable  that  Paul  went  into  Arabia  to  preach, 
and  that  this  was  the  field  of  his  first  missionary  activities.  According  to  Lake, 
Paul  was  arguing  that  he  was  divinely  commissioned  to  preach  and  did  not  need  the 
sanction  of  the  leaders  of  the  church,  hence  instead  of  going  to  Jerusalem  to  secure 
their  endorsement,  he  went  into  Arabia  and  began  his  work.  He  says:  "The  antithe- 
sis is  not  between  conferring  with  flesh  and  blood  in  Jerusalem,  and  conferring  with 
God  in  the  desert,  but  between  obeying  immediately  the  commission  of  God  to  preach 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  going  to  some  human  source  in  Jerusalem  in  order  to  obtain 
authority  or  additional  instruction."  He  thinks  Paul's  argument  requires  the  sense: 
"As  soon  as  I  received  my  divine  commission  I  acted  upon  it  at  once,  without  consult- 
ing anyone,  and  began  to  preach  in  Arabia"  (The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paid,  1911, 
pp.  320  ff.). 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  13 

ly  declared  that  he  avoided  them,  for  instead  of  going  to  Jerusalem,  he 
went  into  Arabia.^ 

It  is  very  probable  that  Paul  would  be  anxious  to  visit  some  of 
the  leaders  of  the  church  before  he  entered  upon  any  very  aggressive 
campaign.  After  his  visit  with  Peter  for  the  purpose  of  talking  with 
him  about  the  gospel  and  hearing  from  him  all  he  knew  about  Jesus,  he 
went  to  his  work  in  the  regions  of  Syria  and  Cilicia;  but  he  was  still 
unknown  by  face  to  the  churches  of  Judea.  He  sought  to  make  it 
emphatic  that  he  was  working  independently,  yet  he  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  although  he  had  not  been  sent  out  by  the  churches  and  was 
not  even  known  by  face  to  them,  they  kept  in  touch  with  him  and  were 
in  sympathy  with  his  work,  for  they  heard  that  he  that  had  once  perse- 
cuted the  church  was  preaching  the  faith  of  which  he  had  once  made 
havoc,  and  they  glorified  God  in  him. 
(c).  The  possession  of  his  gospel  of  justification  by  faith,  his  call  to  be  an 

apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 

Although  Paul  preached  the  gospel  to  his  own  countrymen  and 
longed  for  their  salvation,  yet  so  much  of  his  time  and  energy  was 
given  to  the  Gentiles  that  he  was  regarded  as  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  he  so  designated  himself  (Rom.  11:13).  The  question  is  naturally 
raised  whether  Paul  realized  the  extent  of  his  mission  as  soon  as  he  had 
readjusted  his  thinking  to  his  conversion-experience,  or  whether  it 
was  his  missionary  activities  which  led  him  to  interpret  his  call  as  being 
to  the  Gentiles.  Some  writers  maintain  that  the  universal  character 
of  Paul's  gospel  was  due  to  his  experiences  after  he  began  preaching. 
They  hold  that  the  opposition  which  the  Jews  manifested  to  Paul's 
preaching,  and  the  eagerness  of  the  Gentiles  to  receive  his  message, 
led  him  to  the  conviction  that  his  mission  was  to  the  Gentile  world.* 
The  reception  which  his  gospel  received  did  undoubtedly  confirm  him  in 

'  Carl  von  Weizsacker  believes  Paul  avoided  Jerusalem  until  he  had  become  ad- 
justed to  his  new  experiences  because  he  felt  that  the  spirit  of  the  Jerusalem  Church 
was  not  in  harmony  with  the  truth  which  had  been  revealed  to  him;  but  after  he  had 
meditated  upon  his  experience  from  every  point  of  view,  and  his  gospel  had  become 
formulated,  he  decided  to  visit  the  leaders  of  the  church  {Das  Apostolische  Zeitalter 
Der  christlichen  Kirche,  1901,  pp.  78  ff.).  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  Paul  knew  the 
Jerusalem  type  of  Christianity  well  enough  to  have  come  to  this  conclusion,  and  if 
the  account  in  Acts  is  accepted  as  trustworthy,  the  Jerusalem  Christianity  with  which 
he  had  come  in  close  touch  was  the  more  liberal  t)rpe  represented  by  Stephen. 

*  That  is  the  position  of  Bemhard  Weiss  (Lehrbuch  der  Einleitung  in  das  Neue 
Testament,  1897,  pp.  119  &.,  English  translation,  Vol.  I,  p.  154),  and  also  of  George 
Barker  Stevens  (The  Pauline  Theology,  1906,  p.  21). 


14  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

the  conviction  that  it  was  for  the  Gentiles,  but  according  to  his  own 
interpretation,  his  call  to  be  an  apostle  to  the  Gentile  world  came  with 
the  revelation  of  Christ  in  him  (Gal.  1:15-24).  While  it  necessarily 
required  some  time  for  Paul  to  fully  comprehend  the  significance  of 
his  call,  yet  he  would  scarcely  have  made  the  solemn  declaration  that 
he  was  not  lying,  if  he  had  realized  that  he  had  been  led  into  the  Gentile 
mission  through  the  experience  of  after  years.  ^ 
b.  The  experiences  connected  with  his  missionary  activities. 

Paul  insisted  that  his  apostleship  was  attested  by  its  fruits.  The 
fact  that  he  had  been  doing  the  work  of  an  apostle  was  indisputable 
evidence  that  he  had  divine  sanction  for  his  missionary  activities. 
The  basis  of  his  appeal  to  the  leaders  at  Jerusalem  for  their  approval 
of  the  work  he  was  doing  was  the  fruits  of  his  labors  (Gal.  2:1-9).  Paul 
did  not  go  to  Jerusalem  to  be  appointed  an  apostle,  nor  to  have  his 
apostleship  confirmed  by  the  original  group;  he  merely  wanted  their 
sanction  to  what  he  had  been  doing,  for  he  had  reached  a  crisis,  and 
without  their  approval,  his  work  was  in  danger  of  failing  (Gal.  2:2). 
It  was  expediency  that  prompted  Paul  to  seek  the  support  of  the  leaders 
at  Jerusalem,  for  they  were  held  in  high  esteem  by  the  whole  church, 
and  he  knew  if  they  commended  the  work  he  was  doing  he  would  be 
able  to  overcome  the  antagonistic  influence  of  the  Judaizers.  Person- 
ally it  did  not  make  any  difference  to  him  what  they  were  (Gal.  2:6), 
but  it  did  to  others,  and  he  was  willing  to  do  anything  that  was  honorable 
to  make  the  cause  of  Christ  triumphant.  Paul  sought  an  interview 
with  the  leaders  first,  and  after  he  had  their  approval,  it  was  easy  to 
secure  the  support  of  the  larger  group.  He  placed  before  them  the 
gospel  which  he  had  preached  among  the  Gentiles,  and  showed  them 
the  fruits  of  his  labors,  and  when  they  perceived  the  grace  that  had 
been  bestowed  on  him  and  his  companion,  they  gave  them  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship  that  they  should  go  to  the  Gentiles.  The  leaders  at 
Jerusalem  saw  that  as  God  had  wrought  for  Peter  unto  the  apostleship 
of  the  circumcision,  so  he  had  wrought  for  Paul  unto  the  Gentiles,  and 
they  gladly  commended  the  work  he  was  doing.  In  other  words,  the 
apostles  and  leaders  at  Jerusalem,  whom  all  the  churches  recognized, 
gave  their  sanction  to  Paul  and  his  gospel,  because  the  success  of  his 
work  was  an  indication  that  it  had  the  approval  of  God. 

In  his  appeal  to  the  churches  for  apostolic  sanction,  Paul  empha- 
sized the  fruits  of  his  labors.    He  told  the  Galatians  that  while  the 

'  See  A.  B.  Bruce,  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity ,  1894,  p.  41. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  15 

churches  in  Judea  did  not  know  him  by  face,  yet  they  had  heard  of  the 
success  of  his  work,  and  they  glorified  God  because  of  what  he  was 
doing  (Gal.  1:18-24).  In  his  letters  to  the  Corinthians,  he  insisted 
that  they  should  regard  him  as  an  apostle  because  he  had  done  among 
them  the  work  of  an  apostle.  In  reply  to  the  criticism  of  those  in 
Corinth  who  maintained  that  he  was  not  an  apostle,  he  referred  to  his 
labors  in  their  midst.  He  told  them  that  regardless  of  what  the  atti- 
tude of  others  might  be,  they  ought  to  consider  him  an  apostle,  because 
he  had  done  among  them  the  work  of  an  apostle.  He  said:  "If  to 
others  I  am  not  an  apostle,  yet  at  least  I  am  to  you;  for  the  seal  of  mine 
apostleship  are  ye  in  the  Lord"  (I  Cor.  9:2).  It  would  seem  that  the 
Judaizers  brought  letters  of  commendation  from  influential  people  at 
Jerusalem,  but  Paul  said  he  did  not  need  such  testimonials,  for  the 
Christians  at  Corinth  were  his  letters  of  commendation,  written  by  the 
spirit  of  the  living  God.  The  churches  that  had  been  founded  by  apos- 
tles had  a  feeUng  of  pride  in  their  apostolic  origin,  and  Paul  assured 
the  Corinthians  that  they  were  not  behind  the  rest  of  the  churches  in 
this  regard,  for  he  was  not  inferior  to  the  chiefest  of  the  apostles.  His 
credentials  were  presented  to  them  through  signs  and  wonders  and 
mighty  works  (II  Cor.  12:11,  12).  When  Paul  thought  of  himself  in 
the  light  of  his  career  as  a  persecutor,  he  felt  he  was  not  worthy  to  be 
called  an  apostle  (I  Cor.  15:9);  but  when  he  thought  of  himself  in  the 
light  of  his  Christian  labors,  he  believed  he  was  second  to  none. 

His  Rights  and  Authority  as  an  Apostle 
To  be  an  apostle  was  not  to  possess  an  empty  title,  according  to 
Paul's  thinking;  it  carried  with  it  certain  rights  and  responsibihties. 
He  was  wilhng  to  bear  the  responsibilities,  and  he  also  insisted  on  his 
rights. 

To  Claim  Support 
a.  The  claim  stated. 

Paul  believed  he  was  an  apostle  of  equal  standing  with  the  others, 
and  he  also  believed  he  had  equal  rights  with  the  others.  Among  these 
rights  which  he  could  claim,  if  he  desired  to  do  so,  was  that  of  support 
by  the  church  where  he  was  laboring  (I  Cor.  9:1-14).  While  he  was 
preaching  in  Corinth  he  did  not  live  at  the  expense  of  the  community, 
but  by  means  of  his  own  labors,  assisted  by  the  help  received  from 
Macedonia,  he  lived  without  claiming  support  from  the  people  for 
whom  he  was  giving  his  time.  It  seems  that  some  of  his  enemies  used 
this  as  an  argument  against  his  apostleship  (II  Cor.  11:7).    In  reply 


16  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

to  their  statements,  Paul  said  he  had  a  right  to  claim  support,  but  he 
did  not  do  it  because  he  wanted  to  take  away  from  any  in  the  regions 
of  Achaia  the  occasion  of  glorying,  and  in  order  that  he  might  do  this, 
he  was  willing  to  rob  other  churches  that  he  might  labor  in  Corinth 
without  being  at  their  expense. 

The  principle  which  Paul  announced  in  his  letters  to  the  Corinthians 
undoubtedly  represented  his  general  attitude.  He  believed  he  had  the 
right  to  claim  support,  but  when  he  thought  it  was  best  for  the  work  he 
was  doing  he  provided  for  himself,  or  received  aid  from  other  commu- 
nities, 
b.  Basis  of  his  claim. 

(a)  Experience. 

The  first  argument  which  Paul  used  to  prove  his  claim  was  based 
on  analogy,  and  this  was  an  appeal  to  their  common  experience.  The 
analogies  which  he  employed  were  of  such  a  character  that  the  Corin- 
thians would  be  famiUar  with  them.  These  were  not  given  as  conclu- 
sive argument,  but  they  served  to  lay  the  foundation  for  argument 
which  he  did  regard  as  conclusive.  He  said  the  soldier  does  not  fight  at 
his  own  charges,  but  he  is  supported  by  the  country  he  serves.  The 
man  who  plants  a  vineyard  eats  of  the  fruit  of  the  vineyard  and  the  man 
who  feeds  a  flock  eats  of  the  milk  of  the  flock  (I  Cor.  9:7).  Paul  did 
not  draw  his  conclusions  from  these  analogies,  but  the  implied  argument 
is  evident:  if  a  soldier  is  supported  by  the  country  he  is  serving,  and 
the  man  who  plants  a  vineyard  or  feeds  a  flock  is  provided  for  by  the 
vineyard  or  the  flock,  then  the  man  who  preaches  the  gospel  has  the 
right  to  claim  maintenance  from  those  for  whom  he  is  laboring. 

(b)  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

Paul  felt  that  analogy  would  not  be  sufficient  proof  for  the  Corin- 
thians. That  was  speaking  after  the  manner  of  men,  and  he  wanted 
a  statement  that  would  be  unanswerable.  The  Old  Testament  fur- 
nished this,  for  the  law  teaches  the  very  thing  that  he  had  pointed  out 
by  analogy:  ''For  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle 
the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn. "  According  to  our  method  of 
interpreting  Scripture,  this  passage  which  Paul  quoted  from  Deut.  25:4 
might  be  used  as  an  illustration,  but  it  could  not  be  given  any  more 
significance  than  that.  Paul,  however,  because  of  his  rabbinical  train- 
ing, allegorized  the  passage  and  put  a  meaning  into  it  which  was  foreign 
to  its  original  import.  He  said  when  God  commanded  the  Israelites 
not  to  muzzle  the  ox  when  it  was  treading  out  the  corn  but  to  leave  its 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  17 

mouth  free  so  that  it  might  eat  some  of  the  grain  as  a  reward  for  its 
labor,  he  was  not  thinking  of  the  ox  but  of  the  apostles  who  were  to 
come  centuries  later,  and  he  commanded  this  for  their  sakes. 

Having  given  a  direct  citation  from  the  Scriptures  to  prove  his 
contention,  Paul  further  substantiated  it  by  a  familiar  illustration 
from  the  religion  of  Judaism.  He  referred  to  the  priests  who  ate  the 
things  in  the  temple  where  they  ministered,  and  implied  that  this  was 
according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  quoted  above. 
(c)  The  teachings  of  Jesus. 

As  the  chmax  of  his  argument,  Paul  stated  the  teachings  of  Jesus: 
"Even  so  did  the  Lord  ordain  that  they  that  proclaim  the  gospel  should 
live  of  the  gospel. "  It  is  evident  that  6  Kuptos  refers  to  Christ,  and  that 
Paul  intended  to  place  the  teachings  of  Jesus  concerning  the  support  of 
apostles  alongside  the  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament.^  Just  as  God 
had  ordained  that  those  who  minister  in  the  temple  should  eat  of  the 
things  of  the  temple,  so  Christ  declared  that  those  who  preach  the 
gospel  should  be  supported  by  those  for  whom  they  are  laboring.  Paul 
undoubtedly  knew  some  statement  of  Jesus  Uke  that  which  is  recorded 
in  Matt.  10:10  or  Lk.  10:7,  8. 

In  establishing  his  right  to  claim  support,  Paul  appealed  first  to 
the  common  experience  of  mankind,  and  then  he  sought  to  show  that 
the  Old  Testament  and  Jesus  himself  commanded  that  this  maintenance 
should  be  given. 

To  determine  the  character  of  the  gospel  preached  among  the  Gentiles 
a.  Statement  of  his  claim. 

As  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  Paul  believed  he  had  authority  to 
determine  the  character  of  the  gospel  that  should  be  preached  in  the 
Gentile  world.  He  said  nothing  about  the  type  of  gospel  that  should 
be  preached  in  Jewish  communities.  He  was  willing  that  Cephas  and 
James  and  John  should  go  to  the  circumcision  and  preach  the  gospel  as 
they  understood  it;  but  he  wanted  to  be  left  alone  in  his  own  territory 
to  preach  the  gospel  which  had  been  revealed  to  him,  and  which  had 
been  demonstrated  to  be  efifective  in  the  transformation  of  the  Gentiles. 
He  bitterly  denounced  the  Judaizers  who  came  into  his  field,  and  he 
hurled  anathemas  against  those  who  should  proclaim  any  other  gospel 
than  that  which  he  had  preached  (Gal.  1:8,  9).  Paul  rebuked  Peter 
when  he  came  into  his  territory  and  assumed  an  attitude  that  was  not 
in  harmony  with  the  gospel  which  the  Gentiles  had  received  (Gal.  2:11- 
14). 

•  See  Int.  Crit,  Com.  on  I  Cor.  9:14. 


18  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

b.  The  basis  of  his  claim. 

Paul  felt  absolutely  certain  about  his  right  to  determine  the  char- 
acter of  the  gospel  which  should  be  preached  in  the  Gentile  world,  and 
his  conviction  was  the  result  of  experience.    His  plan  of  labor  was 
determined  by  the  character  of  his  gospel,  for  this  made  him  the  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles.    According  to  Rom.  15:20,  he  would  not  build  upon 
another  man's  foundation.     His  aim  was  to  preach  the  gospel  where 
Christ  had  not  aheady  been  named.    The  question  is  naturally  raised 
as  to  what  Paul  meant  by  not  building  on  another  man's  foundation. 
He  said  he  had  preached  the  gospel  from  Jerusalem  and  round  about  even 
unto  Illyricum,  and  was  planning  to  go  to  Spain  to  find  new  territory. 
He  said  he  was  intending  to  stop  in  Rome  on  the  way  and  that  this 
would  be  the  fruition  of  the  desire  of  many  years.     He  declared  he  was 
ready  to  preach  the  gospel  to  those  who  were  in  Rome,  although  a  church 
had  already  been  estabhshed  there  of  which  he  evidently  was  not  the 
founder.     This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  while  he  had  not  established 
the  church  at  Rome,  he  considered  this  a  part  of  his  field  of  labor.    His 
field  was  the  Gentile  world,  or  those  communities  which  had  received 
the  Gentile  type  of  Christianity  (Rom.  1:5,  6,  13;  15:14-16).     Paul  had 
seen  the  Gentiles  accept  the  gospel  which  he  preached,  and  had  witnessed 
its  transforming  influence  upon  their  lives,  and  it  was  the  conviction 
that  this  gospel  was  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  Gentile  world  that 
made  him  feel  that  this  territory  was  his  and  that  his  authority,  as  an 
apostle,  to  determine  the  type  of  gospel  which  should  be  preached  in 
this  territory  was  supreme. 

In  his  BLTgument  with  Peter,  Paul  appealed  to  their  common  experi- 
ence to  support  his  contention  (Gal.  2:11  ff.).  When  Peter  came  to 
Antioch  and  saw  the  power  of  the  gospel  over  the  Gentiles,  he  was 
delighted  and  entered  into  their  fellowship,  and  even  ate  with  them. 
But  when  certain  came  from  James,  perhaps  for  the  purpose  of  spying 
on  Peter  as  well  as  on  Paul,  policy  induced  him  to  draw  back.  Because 
he  was  afraid  of  the  influence  of  these  spies,  he  separated  himself  from 
the  Gentiles,  "fearing  them  that  were  of  the  circumcision."  This 
conduct  of  Peter  threatened  to  wreck  the  work  at  Antioch,  as  it  caused 
the  Jews  to  dissemble,  and  even  Barnabas  was  carried  away.  When  Paul 
saw  what  Peter  had  done,  he  rebuked  him,  for  he  knew  he  "walked  not 
uprightly  according  to  the  truth  of  the  gospel."  To  get  Peter  to  see 
the  error  of  his  course,  he  appealed  to  their  common  experience.  He 
said  although  they  were  Jews,  they  knew  that  a  man  was  justified  by 
faith  in  Christ  and  not  by  works  of  the  law;  and  inasmuch  as  they 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  19 

had  forsaken  the  works  of  the  law  because  they  had  not  been  helped  by 
them,  they  should  not  seek  to  build  them  up  again. 

Not  to  Exercise  Lordship  over  the  Faith  of  Others 

a.  Statement  of  his  position. 

Although  Paul  claimed  that  his  being  an  apostle  to  the  Gentiles 
entitled  him  to  determine  the  character  of  the  gospel  that  should  be 
preached  in  the  Gentile  world,  yet  he  did  not  feel  that  he  had  the  right 
to  exercise  lordship  over  the  faith  of  others.  He  claimed  authority 
to  keep  out  of  his  field  any  who  would  enslave  the  Gentile  Christians, 
but  he  did  not  believe  it  was  within  his  province  to  force  the  faith  of 
even  Gentiles  into  his  mold.  He  said  he  did  not  seek  to  have  lordship 
over  the  faith  of  others,  but  he  was  merely  their  helper  (II  Cor.  1:24). 

Paul  knew  he  had  been  divinely  called  to  be  an  apostle,  and  he  be- 
lieved this  gave  him  certain  authority  as  a  teacher.  His  message  was 
the  one  which  God  gave  him.  His  wisdom  was  of  God  rather  than  of 
this  world.  He  praised  the  Corinthians  for  having  received  the  tradi- 
tions as  he  had  delivered  them  (I  Cor.  11:2).  He  told  the  Thessalo- 
nians  that  he  and  his  associates  might  have  claimed  authority  as  apostles 
of  Christ  (I  Thess.  2:6).  In  his  relation  to  the  Corinthians  he  some- 
times seemed  to  try  to  force  them  to  do  his  bidding  regardless  of  their 
own  wishes,  but  this  was  in  matters  pertaining  to  conduct,  and  he  assured 
them  that  his  only  motive  in  his  insistence  was  to  help  them.  He  be- 
lieved authority  had  been  given  him  by  the  Lord,  but  that  it  was  for 
the  purpose  of  building  up  the  churches  and  not  for  the  purpose  of 
tearing  them  down  (II  Cor.  10:8;  13:10);  that  being  true,  he  could  exer- 
cise this  authority  only  as  it  would  contribute  to  the  building  up  of 
Christians. 

b.  The  basis  of  his  conviction. 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  explain  the  process  by  which  one*s  convic- 
tions are  formed.  Sometimes  Paul's  argument  is  stated  so  definitely 
that  it  is  not  difficult  to  determine  what  he  thought  was  the  basis  of 
his  judgment  on  a  certain  matter,  but  quite  frequently  that  is  not  the 
case.  He  did  not  state  what  it  was  that  led  him  to  feel  that  he  did  not 
have  the  right  to  exercise  lordship  over  the  faith  of  others,  but  it  was 
undoubtedly  his  own  experience.  Faith  was  for  him  a  personal  matter; 
it  was  the  result  of  Christ's  laying  hold  upon  him.  Others  might  help 
him  in  the  matter  of  faith,  but  they  could  not  compel  him.  PauPs 
experience  had  convinced  him  that  faith  was  a  personal  matter  for 
others  also;  it  was  the  result  of  Christ's  having  entered  into  their  lives. 
Inasmuch  as  faith  concerns  the  individual  and  his  Master,  not  even  an 
apostle  has  the  right  to  exercise  lordship  over  it. 


20  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

SUMMARY 

There  are  many  influences  which  determine  one's  relation  to  life 
and  the  interpretation  of  his  various  experiences.  If  Paul  were  living 
in  our  day  and  had  our  psychological  and  philosophical  conceptions,  he 
would  interpret  his  experiences  very  different  from  what  he  did.  Each 
man  has  a  mental  attitude  which  determines  to  a  large  extent  his  reac- 
tion to  his  environment.  Paul's  mental  attitude  was  that  of  a  devout 
Jew  who  believed  God  was  outside  man's  world  and  occasionally  broke 
into  it  in  a  miraculous  manner  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  particular 
purpose.  He  had  heard  of  Jesus  through  the  Christians  whom  he  was 
persecuting.  He  had  heard  their  declarations  that  God  had  raised  him 
from  the  dead,  and  that  he  was  now  living  as  their  Messiah,  and  he  had 
heard  them  plead  with  others  to  accept  him  as  their  Messiah.  Although 
he  had  not  found  satisfaction  in  his  religion,  the  Christians  were  re- 
joicing in  theirs.  Without  being  conscious  of  it,  Paul  was  passing 
through  a  crisis,  and  the  journey  for  the  purpose  of  persecution  com- 
pelled him  to  think  over  the  experiences  of  the  Christians  in  the  light 
of  his  own,  and  this  helped  to  prepare  him  for  a  radical  change.  He 
became  convinced  that  the  Christians  were  right  in  their  claims,  and 
that  he  was  opposing  God  by  his  persecutions.  He  suddenly  stopped 
in  his  career,  and  accepted  the  Christ  of  the  Christians.  Paul  regarded 
this  change  as  a  revelation  of  Christ.  He  believed  God  had  entered 
into  his  world  in  a  miraculous  manner,  and  that  the  purpose  of  this 
revelation  was  to  make  him  an  apostle.  He  was  absolutely  certain  that 
he  was  an  apostle,  because  God  had  miraculously  appointed  him.  He 
believed  his  authority  had  been  handed  down  from  heaven.  Paul 
believed  his  apostleship  was  attested  by  supernatural  signs  (II  Cor.  12:11 
ff.).  No  one  had  the  right  to  doubt  his  claim,  because  "by  signs  and 
wonders  and  mighty  works"  he  had  demonstrated  his  apostleship.  He 
also  believed  God  had  ratified  his  apostolic  appointment  by  the  success 
which  he  had  given  him.  The  victories  which  his  gospel  had  won  in 
the  Gentile  world  were  convincing  proof  that  God  had  given  his  sanc- 
tion to  what  he  was  doing. 

Paul  knew  that  God  had  bestowed  upon  him  special  prerogatives. 
He  knew  he  had  authority  to  claim  support  and  to  determine  the  type 
of  gospel  which  should  be  preached  in  the  Gentile  world,  and  he  knew  he 
had  authority  over  others  as  long  as  he  used  it  for  their  upbuilding. 
He  made  use  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  teachings  of  Jesus  to  verify  his 
claims,  but  the  real  proof  for  Paul  himself  was  his  own  experience.  God 
had  entered  into  his  life  in  a  miraculous  manner  and  had  given  him 
special  powers,  and  this  meant  special  authority  for  him. 


CHAPTER  II 

DOCTRINAL  ELEMENTS  IN  PAUL'S  WRITINGS 

Paul  wrote,  not  as  a  theologian,  but  as  a  religious  teacher,  and 
the  one  who  studied  his  writings  to  find  a  system  of  theology  would 
fail  to  understand  him.  Not  even  in  Romans  did  he  attempt  to  state 
his  doctrine  in  systematic  form.  He  was,  first  of  all,  a  missionary, 
and  all  his  letters  had  a  missionary  purpose.  But  while  Paul  did  not 
write  as  a  theologian,  he  did  have  his  theology,  and  his  doctrine  is 
manifest  in  all  his  letters.  Our  present  task  is  to  make  a  brief  study 
of  some  of  the  most  important  of  these  doctrinal  conceptions  to  deter- 
mine the  sources  from  which  he  derived  them.  Our  purpose  is  not  to 
make  an  exhaustive  study  of  Paul's  doctrine,  but  merely  to  investigate 
the  most  important  of  these  as  they  are  related  to  his  conception  of 
authority.  This  will  be  done  under  the  following  heads:  his  conception 
of  God,  of  man  and  his  world,  of  Christ,  of  the  new  life,  and  of  future 
things. 

God 
His  Conception  Stated 
Paul  made  many  references  to  God,  but  his  idea  is  perhaps  indi- 
cated as  much  by  what  is  impHed  as  by  what  is  stated.  He  taught  that 
God  is  one  (Gal.  3:20;  I  Cor.  8:6).  While  there  are  many  so-called  gods, 
yet  in  reality  there  is  only  one  God.  God  is  living  and  true  (I  Thess. 
1:9).  He  is  not  of  wood  and  stone  like  the  gods  of  the  heathen.  He 
was  the  creator  of  heaven  and  earth.  All  things  are  from  him  (I  Cor. 
8:6),  and  all  things  belong  to  him  (I  Cor.  10:26).  He  thought  of  God 
as  existing  in  heaven  from  whence  he  sent  forth  his  Son  (Gal.  4:4),  and 
yet  he  believed  he  had  a  vital  connection  with  earth,  and  especially 
with  the  people  on  earth.  He  was  the  God  of  Israel  in  a  pecuHar  sense, 
for  he  entered  into  a  special  covenant  relation  with  them,  and  gave 
them  the  oracles  (Rom.  3:2;  9:4,  5).  But  while  he  was  the  God  of  the 
Jews  in  a  peculiar  sense,  he  revealed  himself  to  all  (Rom.  1:19).  He  is 
the  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (II  Cor.  1:3),  and  he  is  also  the 
Father  of  the  Christians  (Gal.  1:1,  3).  He  is  faithful,  and  he  is  the 
Comforter  of  his  children  (II  Cor.  1:5).  He  is  loving,  even  towards 
sinners  (Rom.  5:8),  and  yet  he  is  wrathful  towards  those  who  continue 
as  his  enemies  (Rom.  1:18;  2:8,  9).     Paul  regarded  God  as  a  Sovereign 


22  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Being  and  he  believed  he  had  a  right  to  choose  whom  he  wished  to  carry 
out  his  will  (I  Thess.  1 :4;  I  Cor.  1 :26-31 ;  Rom.  8 :28-30).  Paul  believed 
God  is  revealed  to  men  in  many  ways.  He  is  revealed  through  the 
natural  world  and  through  the  conscience  of  man,  hence  the  Gentiles, 
who  have  not  had  a  special  revelation,  can  know  him.  He  is  revealed 
in  history,  and  especially  in  the  Jewish  nation,  and  above  all  else  he  is 
revealed  in  Christ. 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Conceptions 
It  would  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  point  out  the  sources  from 
which  we  have  derived  any  particular  notion  we  may  have  of  religion; 
it  is  much  more  difficult  to  point  out  the  sources  from  which  others 
have  derived  their  conceptions;  and  the  difficulty  is  increased  when  the 
person  we  are  studying  Uved  in  a  past  age  and  in  an  environment  which 
is  different  from  ours.  It  is  possible,  however,  to  determine  the  most 
important  forces  which  have  contributed  elements  to  our  religious 
thinking;  and,  just  to  the  extent  that  we  reconstruct  the  world  in  which 
Paul  lived,  can  we  fix  upon  the  most  important  factors  which  entered 
into  his  thinking.  Upon  the  basis  of  a  reconstruction  of  Paul's  environ- 
ment we  shall  attempt  to  find  out  the  sources  from  which  he  derived 
the  elements  of  his  thought,  and  this  will  enable  us  to  determine  the  value 
which  he  assigned  to  these  sources, 
a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

Paul  had  been  a  Pharisee  before  he  became  a  Christian,  and  he 
brought  over  into  his  Christian  experience  the  religious  heritage  of 
Judaism.  As  a  Jew,  Paul  had  beUeved  in  God,  and  this  belief  naturally 
helped  to  shape  his  Christian  experience.  The  references  which  Paul 
made  to  God  are  not  of  a  character  that  would  lead  us  to  believe  his 
conception  of  God  as  a  Christian  differed  radically  from  what  it  had 
been  as  a  Jew.  He  did  not  seek  to  correct  erroneous  impressions  con- 
cerning God,  but  his  references  would  indicate  that  he  felt  he  was  stating 
what  he  had  always  beheved. 

In  tracing  the  sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  religious  think- 
ing, it  is  safe  to  assume  that  when  the  facts  can  be  explained  by  what 
Paul  must  have  known  before  he  became  a  Christian,  it  is  needless 
to  look  elsewhere  for  an  explanation.  The  God  whom  Paul  knew  when 
he  was  a  Pharisee  continued  to  be  the  God  whom  he  worshipped  when  he 
was  a  Christian,  although  his  conception  of  him  was  very  much  enriched 
by  his  Christian  experiences.  Paul  never  discussed  the  divine  nature, 
and  when  he  made  any  reference  to  this,  he  expressed  the  ideas  of  Juda- 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  23 

ism.  There  is jio  indication  in_any  ofjiis  writingaJLhat  he  consciously 
took  exception  to  the  Jewish  idea  of  God.  He  at  no  time  intimated 
that  his  beUef  in  God  as  a  Jew  and  a  Pharisee  was  imperfect.  On  the 
contrary,  he  accepted  that  behef  and  made  it  a  part  of  his  Christian 
teaching. 

Paul  placedjnuch  emphasisonjdivine  election;  yet  he  was  not  always 
consistent  on  that  point.  )At  one  time  he  seemed  to  say  the  election 
or  rejection  of  Israel  was  dependent  absolutely  upon  God's  choice, 
while  at  another  time  he  seemed  to  feel  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews 
was  due  to  their  own  failure.  This  conception  was  largely  due  to  his 
rabbinical  training.  The  doctrine  of  election  is  definitely  taught  in 
"The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,"  as  the  following  quotation  will  indicate: 
"Verily,  as  for  a  man,  his  position  is  laid  in  the  balance  before  Thee. 
He  addeth  not  thereto,  nor  increaseth  contrary  to  thy  judgment,  O 
God"  (5:6).  According  to  "The  Assumption  of  Moses"  (12:8-13)  the 
certainty  of  blessedness  for  the  righteous  is  not  dependent  upon  their 
own  piety,  but  upon  God  having  ordained  it.  The  doctrine  of  divine 
election  had  become  definitely  formulated  in  the  Pharisaic  thought  of 
the  time.  According  to  Josephus,^  the  Pharisees  ascribe  everything 
"to  fate,  or  providence,  and  to  God";  and  yet  they  "allow,  that  to  act 
what  is  right,  or  the  contrary,  is  principally  in  the  power  of  man." 
The  position  of  the  Pharisees,  as  it  was  stated  by  Josephus,  was  virtually 
the  position  of  Paul. 
b.  His  Contact  with  the  Mediterranean  World. 

Before  the  time  of  his  conversion,  Paul's  thought  of  God's  relation 
to  the  world  was  broader  than  that  of  the  Palestinian  Jew  of  his  day. 
He  had  spent  his  early  life  among  the  Gentiles,  and  the  conviction  had 
been  impressed  upon  him  that  many  of  them  knew  God  and  were  seek- 
ing to  serve  him.  This  conviction  was  confirmed  by  his  contact  with 
the  Gentiles  during  his  missionary  career.  The  Pharisees  who  had  been 
raised  in  Palestine  despised  the  Gentiles  because  they  did  not  know 
the  law  nor  the  God  who  gave  the  law.  Paul,  however,  because  of  his 
contact  with  the  peoples  of  the  Mediterranean  world,  had  come  to  believe 
that  there  were  Gentiles  who  did  know  God,  for  they  had  seen  him 
through  the  things  that  are  made.  /Paul's  life  in  the  Graeco-Roman 
world  had  convinced  him  that  there  were  Gentiles  who,  although  they 
did  not  have  the  law,  were  doing  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law,  and 
that  some  of  them  were  doing  these  things  better  than  were  many  of  the 
Jews  who  possessed  the  law.  . 

^Bdl.Jud.,  11,8.  14. 


24  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

c.  His  Christian  experience. 

The  conception  of  God  which  Paul  had  when  he  was  a  Pharisee  was 
enriched  by  his  Christian  experience.  His  conversion  magnified  his 
notion  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  until  he  thought  of  him  as  the  One 
who  calls  man  into  being  and  forces  him  into  his  service,  and  as  the 
One  who  selects  whom  he  wills  and  hardens  whom  he  wills.  Paul  was 
preaching  because  God  had  determined  it.  God  had  revealed  his  Son 
in  him  and  had  called  him  by  his  grace,  and  he  had  no  choice  in  the  work; 
his  task  was  to  go  where  God  led  him.  Paul  did  not  attempt  to  recon- 
cile his  conception  of  individual  freedom  with  that  of  divine  election. 
When  he  thought  of  God  he  forgot  all  else  but  his  absolute  sovereignty, 
and  he  felt  it  was  only  by  divine  grace  that  man  could  be  saved;  but 
when  he  thought  of  man  he  knew  he  was  free  to  choose,  and  he  urged 
him  to  work  out  his  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling.  Paul  went 
on  preaching  the  gospel,  for  his  own  experience  had  demonstrated  that 
it  was  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation;  but  he  felt  that  those  who  be- 
lieved were  the  ones  whom  God  had  called.  Paul  did  not  regard  his  own 
experience  as  peculiar.  He  beUeved  God  was  deaUng  with  all  mankind 
as  he  had  dealt  with  him.  It  was  by  grace  that  he  had  been  saved,  and 
others  were  being  saved  in  the  same  way.  Just  a  few  out  of  the  great 
mass  were  accepting  the  gospel,  and  the  explanation  of  this  situation 
was  to  be  found  in  the  fact  of  divine  election  rather  than  in  the  inability 
of  the  gospel  to  reach  them.  It  seems  that  in  Corinth  not  many  learned 
or  influential  had  accepted  the  gospel,  but  those  who  were  Christians 
were,  for  the  most  part,  uncultured,  and  had  come  from  the  humbler 
walks  of  life.  This  was  not  an  indication  of  the  weakness  of  the  gospel 
but  it  was  a  demonstration  of  the  power  and  glory  of  God  (I  Cor.  1 :26- 
31).  The  fact  that  there  were  few  learned  or  influential  people  in  the 
church  proved  to  Paul  that  "not  many  wise  after  the  flesh,  not  many 
mighty,  not  many  noble,  are  called. "  It  indicated  that  God  was  choos- 
ing the  fooUsh  and  weak  things  of  the  world  that  he  might  put  to  shame 
the  things  that  are  wise  and  strong.  It  showed  that  God  wanted  to 
remove  all  opportunity  for  glorying  so  that  no  one  would  have  any  occa- 
sion of  boasting  except  in  the  Lord.  The  eagerness  of  some  to  receive 
the  gospel  was  an  indication  of  their  divine  election.  He  told  the 
Thessalonians  that  he  knew  of  their  election,  for  the  gospel,  when  it  was 
preached  to  them,  came  not  in  word  only,  ''but  also  in  power,  and  in 
I  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  much  assurance"  (I  Thess.  1:4,  5). 

In  his  missionary  labors  Paul  had  to  face  the  fact  that  his  own  coun- 
trymen were  rejecting  the  gospel.     It  was  the  exceptional  Jew  who 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  25 

heard  his  message,  while  the  Gentiles  received  it  gladly.  The  Jews,  who 
were  God's  chosen  people,  were  hostile  to  the  gospel;  while  the  Gen- 
tiles, who  had  been  "strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having 
no  hope  and  without  God  in  the  world, "  were  receiving  it.  This  might 
seem  to  indicate  either  that  the  gospel  was  not  from  God,  or  if  it  was 
from  God,  that  his  promise  to  Israel  was  coming  to  naught  (Rom.  9:6); 
but  Paul's  explanation  of  the  situation  was  the  fact  of  divine  election. 
His  conception  of  God  and  his  own  experience  naturally  led  him  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  attitude  of  the  Jews  was  to  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  God  was  rejecting  them.^  j 

Paul  did  not  feel  that  this  was  a  new  conception  of  God.  God's 
rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  choosing  of  the  Gentiles  were  in  perfect 
accord  w'th  his  method  during  the  past —  *'For  he  saith  to  Moses,  I 
will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  will  have  compassion  .  .  .So  then  he 
hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth"  (Rom. 
9:15-18).  God  chose  Abraham  because  he  willed  it,  and  Isaac  was  the 
one  he  was  pleased  to  select  from  among  the  children  of  Abraham. 
Jacob,  though  he  was  the  younger,  was  chosen,  while  Esau  was  rejected, 
and  this  choice  was  made  before  the  children  were  born.  The  choosing 
and  the  rejecting  were  expressions  of  the  divine  will —  *' Jacob  I  loved, 
but  Esau  I  hated"   (Rom.  9:13). 

Paul's  Christian  conception  of  the  divine  sovereignty  of  God  was 
not  consciously  different  from  what  it  had  been  before  his  conversion. 
His  idea  had  undoubtedly  been  modified  somewhat  by  his  Christian 
experiences,  and  especially  by  his  life  as  a  missionary,  but  there  is  no 
indication  that  he  was  conscious  of  any  such  modification.  His  own 
personal  experience  convinced  him  that  his  conversion  was  the  result 
of  God's  grace,  and  his  missionary  labors  had  led  him  to  believe  that 
God  was  rejecting  the  Jews  and  choosing  the  Gentiles.     I    Paul  had 

'R.  Travers  Herford  puts  this  very  strikingly  {Pharisaism,  1912,  p.  187).  He 
says  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  his  method  of  "getting  over  a 
formidable  difficulty,  namely,  the  obvious  fact  that  the  attitude  of  the  Jews  towards 
Christ  was  not  at  all  what  was  to  be  expected,  if  his  theory  of  the  person  and  work  of 
Christ  were  true,"  Continuing,  he  says:  "It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  start- 
ing point  of  his  theory  was  his  own  personal  relation  to  Christ,  as  he  felt  it  with  an 
intense  certainty  which  nothing  could  shake  for  a  moment.  This  was  his  foundation 
of  absolute  truth;  and  that  could  not  but  be  the  clue  by  which  he  interpreted  all  that 
he  beheld  in  the  world,  and  read  in  the  history  of  man."  Herford  takes  issue  with 
Paul  over  his  premises,  but  we  are  not  concerned  with  that  in  this  connection.  Grant- 
ing his  premises,  and  there  was  no  doubt  in  Paul's  mind  about  the  correctness  of  these, 
there  could  be  but  one  conclusion,  and  that  is  that  God  was  rejecting  the  Jews. 


26  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

been  asked  to  prove  his  statement  concerning  divine  election  he  would 
perhaps  have  replied  that  God  had  manifested  his  sovereign  power  when 
he  had  laid  hold  upon  him  at  the  time  of  his  conversion,  and  that  he  had 
seen  this  same  power  manifested  in  every  place  where  he  had  preached. 
He  would  perhaps  have  added  that  the  Scriptures  plainly  teach  that 
God  is  supreme  in  his  dealings  with  men.  He  is  the  potter  and  men  are 
but  clay  in  his  hands  (Jer.  18:6). 

Paul's  Christian  experience  undoubtedly  gave  him  a  new  notion 
of  God's  relation  to  his  children.^  He  had  learned  from  experience 
that  God  makes  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love 
him,  and  are  called  according  to  his  purpose  (Rom.  8:28).  In  the  light 
of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  Paul  had  come  to  a  new  understanding  of 
God.  He  had  come  to  appreciate  his  love,  for  he  commended  "his 
love  toward  us,  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us" 
(Rom.  5:8).  Paul  reaUzed  that  if  God  spared  not  his  own  Son  but 
delivered  him  up  for  us,  he  would  also  with  him  freely  give  us  all  things 
(Rom.  8:32).  He  was  confident  that  the  love  of  God  which  is  in  Christ 
is  so  strong  that  nothing  could  separate  him  from  it  (Rom.  8:35-39). 
The  divine  Spirit  which  Paul  had  received  through  Christ  enabled  him 
to  understand  the  nearness  of  God.  The  Spirit  which  had  taken  posses- 
sion of  him  was  not  of  bondage  unto  fear,  but  it  was  a  Spirit  of  adoption 
which  enabled  him  to  cry,  Abba,  Father  (Rom.  8:15). 

Man  and  his  World 
Statement  of  Paulas  Teaching 
Paul  evidently  thought  of  the  universe  as  being  like  a  great  build- 
ing in  which  there  are  compartments,  one  above  the  other  (Phil.  2:10). 
He  beUeved  heaven  was  above  the  earth,  and  was  the  abode  of  God,  and 
of  Christ,  and  of  the  angels  (I  Thess.  1:10;  4:16;  Gal.  1:8).  Paul  seems 
to  have  thought  of  heaven  as  arranged  in  a  number  of  stories,  one  above 
the  other,  for  he  said  he  had  been  caught  up  even  to  the  third  heaven 
(H  Cor.  12:2).  He  regarded  the  earth,  which  is  seen,  as  temporal; 
but  heaven,  which  cannot  be  seen,  as  eternal.  He  represented  the 
world  as  evil  (Gal.  1:4),  and  in  bondage,  and  groaning  for  deliverance 
(Rom.  8:19-23).  He  did  not,  however,  believe  the  world  is  evil  in  its 
essence.  He  thought  of  it  as  belonging  to  God,  but  he  realized  that 
there  are  forces  in  it  which  are  in  opposition  to  God,  and  which  seem 
to  be  defeating  him. 

» Heinrich  Wdnel  (Patdus,  1904,  p.  80,  English  translation,  1906,  p.  102)  states 
this  emphatically:  "The  new  man  implied  a  new  God.  Saul's  experience  on  the 
road  to  Damascus  had  revealed  the  God  of  his  fathers  in  a  new  light. " 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  27 

Paul  thought  of  the  abyss  under  the  earth  as  the  abode  of  Satan  and 
the  evil  spirits,  and  he  believed  Satan  had  much  power  in  the  world. 
He  regarded  the  present  age  as  evil,  and  Satan  as  its  ruler  (II  Cor.  4:4). 
He  believed  Satan  and  the  evil  spirits  seek  to  injure  men  and  defeat 
God's  plans  for  his  kingdom.  Paul  had  purposed  to  come  to  Thes- 
salonica,  but  Satan  had  hindered  him  (I  Thess.  2 :18).  He  had  a  thorn  in 
the  flesh,  and  it  was  regarded  as  a  messenger  of  Satan  to  buffet  him 
(II  Cor.  12:7-9).  This  was  perhaps  a  physical  malady,  and  many  have 
believed  it  was  a  defective  eye-sight.  Paul  evidently  believed  Satan 
tortures  men  by  inflicting  upon  them  physical  sufferings  (I  Cor.  5:5). 
He  believed  Satan  is  watching  for  his  opportunity  to  lead  men  into 
sin  (I  Cor.  7:5),  and  that  he  has  many  devices  to  deceive  people  (II 
Cor.  2:11).  He  even  fashions  himself  as  an  angel  of  light  that  he  may 
induce  men  to  follow  his  deceptions  (II  Cor.  11:14).  Paul  regarded 
the  evil  spirits  as  being  especially  active  in  the  heathen  world.  He 
believed  they  were  closely  connected  with  idol-worship  (I  Cor.  10:20, 
21),  and  hence  he  felt  that  participation  in  heathen  sacrifices  would  bring 
one  in  fellowship  with  demons. 

Paul  did  not  have  much  to  say  about  angels,  but  it  is  evident  from 
his  few  references  that  they  had  a  place  in  his  thinking.  He  included 
angels  among  those  influences  which  were  not  able  to  separate  him 
from  the  love  of  God  (Rom.  S:3S,  39),  and  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians, 
he  said  he  was  made  a  spectacle  both  to  angels  and  to  men.  His  use  of 
angels  in  these  passages  may  be  somewhat  figurative,  but  he  also  referred 
to  the  law  as  having  been  ordained  by  angels  (Gal.  3:19). 

Paul  thought  of  man  in  his  natural  state  as  being  of  the  earth,  and 
as  partaking  of  earthly  qualities  (I  Cor.  15:47,  48);  hence  he  regarded 
him  as  sinful  and  subject  to  death.  He  beheved  man  inherited  this 
sinful  nature  from  Adam,  and  inasmuch  as  all  have  originated  from 
Adam,  sin  is  universal  in  its  scope.  Paul  regarded  man  as  composed  of 
flesh  and  spirit,  and  he  believed  there  is  constant  warfare  between  these 
two  natures  (Rom.  7:7-25). 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Conception  of  Man 
and  his  World 
a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

The  statement,  made  above,  concerning  Paul's  relation  to  Judaism, 
is  especially  applicable  in  this  connection.  The  idea  which  he  had 
about  man  and  his  world  before  his  conversion  continued  to  be  a  part 
of  his  Christian  thought,  unless  it  was  modified  by  his  new  experiences. 


28  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

PauFs  conception  of  the  compartments  in  the  universe  is  Jewish,  as  is 
also  the  different  heavens.  This  is  brought  out  very  strikingly  in 
the  book  of  Enoch.  His  notion  of  Satan  and  the  evil  spirits  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  Jewish  thought  of  his  time.  His  conviction  that  Satan 
and  the  evil  spirits  inflict  suffering  on  men  is  expressed  in  the  Book  of 
Jubilees,'*  where  they  are  represented  as  blinding  and  killing  the  grand- 
children of  Noah.  The  idea  that  in  sacrificing  to  idols  sacrifice  is  in 
reality  made  to  demons  is  expressed  in  Deut.  32:17,  and  this  conception 
was  common  in  the  Jewish  literature  of  Paul's  time.*^  The  behef  that 
the  law  was  ordained  through  angels  was  a  part  of  the  Jewish  thought 
of  Paul's  day.  Stephen,  in  his  defense,  spoke  of  the  law  as  having  been 
ordained  by  angels  (Acts  7:58),  and  it  is  thus  stated  in  the  Greek  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament.® 

Inasmuch  as  the  thought  which  Paul  expressed  of  the  world,  of 
angels  and  of  demons  is  found  in  current  Judaism,  it  is  safe  to  assume 
that  this  was  a  part  of  his  inheritance  from  his  pre-Christian  life.  When 
he  wrote  on  these  subjects,  it  was  in  terms  of  the  thought  of  his  age. 

The  conception  that  man  is  both  sinful  and  subject  to  death,  and 
that  he  inherited  these  relationships  from  Adam,  was  a  part  of  the  Jew- 
ish thought  of  Paul's  day.  He  accepted  the  Old  Testament  story,  which 
had  been  much  elaborated  in  current  Jewish  thought,  of  Adam's  fall 
and  the  punishment  of  death  which  was  imposed  upon  him  in  consequence 
of  that  fall;  and  he  undoubtedly  accepted  as  truth  which  had  been  handed 
down  to  him  that  on  account  of  Adam's  transgression,  sin  and  death 
had  passed  to  his  posterity  (I  Cor.  15:45-49;  Rom.  5:12-21). 
b.  The  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  concerning  what  Paul  meant  by 
the  conflict  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit.  There  was  no  subject 
upon  which  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  mind  were  more  widely  divergent 
than  that  of  the  flesh.  The  Greek  thought  of  the  flesh  as  being  in- 
herently evil,  while  the  Hebrew  regarded  the  body  with  reverence. 
Was  Paul,  in  his  notion  of  the  flesh,  in  harmony  with  Greek  thought  or 
with  Hebrew  thought?  or  was  his  idea  different  from  either?  There 
are  many  passages  in  his  writings  which  emphasize  the  antagonism 
between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit.  One  of  the  most  striking  of  these 
is  Gal.  5:16,  17:  "Walk  by  the  spirit,  and  ye  shall  not  fulfill  the  lusts 

*See  10:2. 

» See  Int.  Crit.  Com.,  I  Cor.,  pp.  216  ff. 

•LXX,  Deut.  33:2. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  29 

of  the  flesh.  For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit 
against  the  flesh;  for  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other;  that  ye 
may  not  do  the  things  that  ye  would."  Paul  urged  the  Christians  to 
mortify  the  flesh  (Rom.  8:13;  I  Cor.  5:5;  9:27;  II  Cor.  4:10,  11).  This 
conflict  is  described  at  length  in  Rom.  7:7-15,,  and  according  to  this 
passage,  no  good  thing  dwells  in  the  flesh.  Paul  said  the  law  in  his 
members  made  war  against  the  law  of  his  mind,  and  brought  him  "into 
captivity  under  the  law  of  sin  which  j^s  in  his  members." 

The  Greek  of  TauPs  day  regarded  the  body  as  a  prison  in  which  the 
soul  was  enslaved,  and  by  which  it  was  contaminated.  Did  Paul,  in  his 
writings,  show  the  influence  of  this  Greek  thought,  and  if  so,  to  what 
extent  was  he  actuated  by  it?  Many  writers  have  insisted  that  he  was 
dominated  by  the  Greek  conception  of  the  flesh.''  Many  writers  who 
hold  that  Paul  was  in  the  main  independent  of  Greek  thought  feel  that 
he  was  somewhat  influenced  by  it  in  his  antithesis  between  the  flesh 
and  the  spirit.^  Paul  was  undoubtedly  familiar  with  the  thought  of 
the  Greek  world,  as  were  the  Christians  to  whom  he  was  writing,  and 
it  would  be  almost  inevitable  that  he  should  be  influenced  by  it,  not  only 
in  the  form  in  which  he  expressed  himself,  but  in  the  content  of  his 
message  as  well.  But  while  that  much  is  granted,  it  should  be  borne 
in  mind  that  there  were  other  influences  which  contributed  more  to 
Paul's  conception  of  the  struggle  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit  than 
did  the  thought  of  the  Greek  world. 
c.  His  own  experience. 

Many  writers  hold  that  there  was  no  connection  between  PauFs 
notion  of  the  struggle  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit  and  the  Greek 
thought  of  his  day.  They  hold  that  his  duahsm  was  purely  ethical,  and 
that  the  Old  Testament  and  his  own  experience  would  have  furnished 
him  a  sufficient  basis.  ^  adp^  is  used  quite  frequently  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  designate  man's  nature,  which  is  weak  and  perishable,  in  con- 

'  Dr.  James  Adam  (The  Religious  Teachers  of  Greece,  1908,  p.  381)  points  out  the 
resemblance  between  Paul's  discussion  of  the  flesh  and  the  spirit,  and  the  thought 
of  Plato.  Percy  Gardner  (The  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  p.  167)  thinks 
there  are  traces  of  Greek  influence  in  Paul's  discussion,  but  that  it  does  not  fairly 
represent  him.  He  says:  "We  can  in  places  detect  insertions  of  Greek  thought  which 
scarcely  fit  their  context." 

8  OreUo  Cone  (Paul,  the  Man,  the  Missionary,  and  the  Teacher,  1898,  p.  224)  holds 
that  the  radical  metaphysical  dualism  finds  no  expression  in  Paul's  writings,  yet  he 
thinks  his  ethical  dualism  probably  reflects  Hellenistic  influence. 

"Alexander  Bruce  (St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity,  1911,  pp.  268  f.)  thinks 
Paul's  conception  was  somewhat  like  the  theory  of  the  Greeks,  but  that  there  was  no 


30  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

trast  with  God's,  which  is  strong  and  imperishable.  Paul  used  flesh 
in  that  sense  many  times,  but  he  advanced  beyond  that  idea  and  put 
into  it  an  ethical  content. 

The  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Paul's  Jewish  home  furnished 
the  basis  for  his  conception  of  the  struggle  between  the  flesh  and  the 
spirit;  the  impression  made  by  this  teaching  was  modified  by  his  con- 
tact with  the  thought  of  the  Greek  world;  but  the  influence  which  con- 
tributed most  to  the  development  of  his  idea  was  the  struggle  which 
he  had  experienced  in  his  own  soul.  Paul's  notion  of  the  flesh  had  an 
ethical  content.  He  knew  that  one  element  of  the  weakness  of  the  flesh 
was  moral  in  character,  and  that  was  so  important  in  his  thinking  that 
it  became  the  dominant  idea.  He  knew  the  flesh  was  the  seat  of  pas- 
sions and  desires,  which,  if  not  conquered,  would  lead  to  sin.^° 

There  are  some  passages  in  Paul's  writings,  which,  taken  apart  from 
the  others,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  regarded  the  body,  or  the 
flesh,  as  essentially  evil.  He  spoke  of  putting  to  death  the  deeds  of 
the  body  in  order  that  he  might  live  (Rom.  7:24;  8:10).  He  declared 
that  no  good  thing  dwelt  in  the  flesh  (Rom.  7:18),  and  he  even  urged 
Christians  to  mortify  the  flesh  (Rom.  8:13;  I  Cor.  5:5).  On  the  other 
hand,  Paul  said,  "The  body  is  for  the  Lord"  (I  Cor.  6:13),  and  he 
believed  the  members  can  be  made  instruments  of  righteousness  (Rom. 
6:13).    He  said  the  body  is  ''a  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  (I  Cor.  6:19, 


connection  between  them.  He  thinks  Paul  did  not  come  to  his  conclusion  by  theo- 
rizing, but  he  "contented  himself  with  stating  the  facts  as  they  presented  them- 
selves to  him  in  experience. "  Bruce  does  not  think  it  probable  that  the  Greek  theory 
was  known  to  Paul,  and  he  beUeves  that  if  it  had  been  known  to  him  it  would  not 
have  had  any  attraction  for  him,  as  his  interest  was  wholly  ethical  and  reUgious. 
George  B.  Stevens  {The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  1910,  pp.  340  ff.)  says:  "In 
the  contrast  between  flesh  and  spirit  we  have  to  do  not  with  a  metaphysical  dualism 
based  upon  the  inherent  evil  of  matter  and  derived  from  the  Graeco-Alexandrian 
speculation,  but  with  a  view  of  man  which  has  its  basis  in  the  Old  Testament. "  Ste- 
vens held  that  while  Paul's  doctrine  had  its  basis  in  The  Old  Testament,  it  was  worked 
out  in  the  laboratory  of  his  own  experience.  He  says:  "His  dualism  was  not  based 
upon  the  idea  of  the  inherent  evil  of  matter,  but  upon  the  fact  of  experience  that  out 
of  man's  sensuous  nature  arise  potent  enticements  to  sin  and  that,  in  actual  sinful 
hiunanity,  the  flesh  is  a  powerful  ally  of  evil." 

^°  Alexander  Bruce  {St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity,  1911,  pp.  264  ff.)  thinks 
Paul  had  to  fight  an  unceasing  battle  with  his  own  fleshly  desires,  and  especially  with 
sexual  impulses,  and  that  his  discussion  must  be  studied  in  the  light  of  that  fact. 
He  thinks  Paul  had  these  fleshly  desires  in  mind  when  he  said,  "I  buffet  my  body," 
and  he  thinks  that  statement  is  a  suflSdent  guide  to  Paul's  thought. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  31 

20)  and  he  admonished  the  Romans  to  present  their  bodies  *'a  living 
sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  to  God"  (Rom.  12:1).  Paul  believed  the 
life  of  Jesus  may  be  manifested  '4n  our  mortal  flesh"  (II  Cor.  4:11), 
and  that  the  body  itself  may  be  redeemed  (Rom.  8 :23).  If  in  his  thought 
of  the  struggle  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit,  Paul  was  influenced  to  any 
marked  degree  by  the  notions  of  the  Greek  world,  the  elements  which  he 
took  up  into  his  own  experience  must  have  been  worked  over  under  the 
influence  of  his  soul  struggles.  Instead  of  believing  the  body  is  inher- 
ently evil,  he  declared  it  belongs  to  God  and  should  be  consecrated  to 
his  service.  Instead  of  identifying  the  flesh  with  sin,  he  thought  of  it 
as  being  the  abode  of  sin.  His  own  experience,  which  was  confirmed 
by  the  experience  of  others,  as  he  had  observed  it,  had  convinced  him 
that  there  are  evil  desires  and  impulses  which  have  their  seat  in  the 
flesh,  and  that  these  lead  to  sin  unless  they  are  overcome. 

Paul's  failure  in  the  struggle  to  overcome  the  flesh,  and  the  sub- 
sequent victory  which  he  had  won  through  the  help  of  Christ  were  fun- 
damental in  his  thinking.  He  believed  the  natural  spirit  with  which  the 
flesh  is  in  conflict  belongs  to  every  man,  and  that  this  may  be  defiled 
(II  Cor.  7  1;  I  Thess.  5-23),  and  it  may  even  be  eternally  lost  (I  Cor. 
5:5).  The  battle  is  constantly  being  waged  between  the  flesh  and  the 
spirit,  and  Christ  helps  us  to  win  the  victory  and  enables  us  to  make 
the  flesh  our  servant.  Paul  looked  into  his  own  soul  and  described  the 
conflict  as  he  had  passed  through  it,  and  he  considered  his  interpreta- 
tion of  his  experience  authoritative,  for  he  felt  it  was  confirmed  by 
the  experience  of  others. 

Paul's  experience  was  also  fundamental  in  his  discussion  of  the 
relation  of  sin  to  humanity.  As  already  indicated,  he  inherited  the 
Jewish  belief  that  sin  was  introduced  into  the  world  through  the  trans- 
gression of  Adam;  and  yet  he  was  confident,  as  he  interpreted  his  own 
experience,  that  the  flesh  is  the  means  through  which  sin  manifests 
its  power.  He  also  felt,  as  he  reflected  on  the  conflicts  in  his  own  soul, 
that  sin  is  the  result  of  man's  will,  and  hence  man  is  responsible  for 
his  wrong-doing.  Paul  held  that  sin  is  universal,  and  this  conclusion 
was  confirmed  by  his  own  observations,  and  it  was  also  taught  in  the 
Scriptures. 

Paul,  as  a  boy,  had  the  idea  of  man  and  his  world  which  was  held 
by  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion.  This  differed  somewhat  from  the  view 
of  the  Palestinian  Jew,  and  his  contact  with  the  thought  of  the  Medi- 
terranean world,  both  before  and  after  he  became  a  Christian,  led  to 
further  modifications.    Paul's  mature  Christian  thought  of  the  world 


32  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

was  not  much  different  from  what  it  had  been  as  a  Jew,  but  his  idea  of 
man  was  very  much  changed.  The  struggle  which  he  had  had  with  sin 
because  of  its  connection  with  his  body,  and  the  observation  of  these 
same  struggles  in  the  men  about  him,  together  with  the  Greek  thought 
with  which  he  must  have  been  famiUar,  gave  him  a  conception  of  man 
which  was  very  different  from  what  was  held  by  the  Palestinian  Jew. 
His  ideas  were  born  out  of  soul  struggles  in  the  environment  of  the 
Mediterranean  world. 

Christology 

Paul,  in  his  writings,  had  much  to  say  about  the  Christ,  and  his 
statements  on  this  subject  furnish  one  of  the  best  opportunities  we  have 
to  investigate  his  conception  of  authority.  This  part  of  Paul's  thought 
can  be  considered  most  effectively  by  following  the  order  in  which 
it  was  naturally  presented  to  his  mind.  He  was  concerned,  first  of  all, 
with  the  heavenly  Christ  whom  he  had  come  to  know;  and  his  relation 
to  the  Christ  of  faith  naturally  made  him  interested  in  the  historical 
Jesus,  and  especially  in  his  death  and  resurrection;  and  his  interest 
in  the  historical  Jesus,  and  the  Christ  whom  he  had  come  to  know, 
made  him  interested  in  the  pre-existent  Christ,  as  well  as  in  the  Christ 
of  the  future  age. 

The  Christ  of  Faith 
a.  Statement  of  Paul's  position. 

Paul  placed  much  stress  on  the  knowledge  of  the  heavenly  Christ. 
His  supreme  desire  was  to  know  him,  and  his  great  purpose  in  life  was 
to  lead  others  to  know  him.  He  designated  him  as  ''Jesus  Christ,  our 
Lord, '*  and  "our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. *'  He  believed  Christ  was  his  Lord, 
and  he  frequently  referred  to  himself  as  ''  the  bond-servant  of  Christ. " 
He  preached  Christ  to  others  as  their  Lord  (II  Cor.  4:5),  and  he  beHeved 
his  lordship  extended  to  all  men,  and  that  he  is  rich  unto  all  that  call 
upon  him  (Rom.  10:12).  Paul  was  convinced  that  it  is  through  the 
heavenly  Christ  that  the  new  spiritual  humanity  is  created.  He  is  the 
head  of  the  church,  and  he  is  the  dispenser  of  spiritual  gifts.  Paul 
believed  the  Christ  whom  he  worshipped  had  been  highly  exalted,  and 
had  been  given  the  "name  which  is  above  every  name,"  and  yet  he  felt 
that  the  Christ  of  his  faith  was  subordinate  to  God  and  was  dependent 
upon  him  (I  Cor.  3:23;  15:24-28).  Although  Paul  felt  that  the  Christ 
whom  he  had  come  to~]EnOw~i;rCs  subordinate  to  God,  yet  he  believed 
that  he  had  been  so  exalted  that  he  is  the  very  image  of  God  (II  Cor. 
4:4). 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  33 

When  one  studies  Paul's  writings,  he  must  be  convinced  that  there 
are  striking  differences  between  the  Christ  whom  he  worshipped,  and 
to  whom  he  sought  to  direct  men,  and  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels. There  was  development  along  many  lines,  and  there  were  many 
influences  which  contributed  to  that  development.^^  Not  only  was  the 
spiritual  Christ  whom  Paul  worshipped  different  from  the  Jesus  of  his- 
tory, but  he  was  more  interested  in  the  Christ  whom  he  had  come  to 
know  than  he  was  in  the  Jesus  who  had  lived  in  other  days.^^ 
b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  the  Christ  of  faith. 

(a)  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

Before  his  conversion,  Paul  had  believed  in  the  Messiah  who  was 
to  inaugurate  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  he  was  looking  for  his  appear- 
ance. These  Messianic  ideas  formed  a  part  of  the  background  for 
Paul's  conversion-experiences,  and  hey  also  helped  to  determine  the 
Christ  in  whom  he  came  to  beheve.  He  naturally  interpreted  the  per- 
son of  Christ  in  the  light  of  ideas  which  were  already  famiUar  to  him.^* 
These  Jewish  ideas,  however,  were  not  enough  to  account  for  the  Christ 
in  whom  Paul  believed  and  to  whose  service  he  consecrated  his  life. 
There  were  other  elements  which  were  even  more  important  than 
Jewish  Messianism,  for  when  one  compares  the  Messianic  ideas  of  the 
Jews  with  Paul's  Christology,  he  must  be  convinced  that  the  differences 
are  more  striking  than  the  similarities. 

(b)  The  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

The  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world  cannot  be  neglected 
in  a  genetic  study  of  Paul's  Christology.     Paul  was  a  Hellenist,  and 

"  R.  J.  Campbell  ("Jesus  or  Christ?"  The  Hibbert  Journal  Supplement  for  1909, 
p.  189)  thinks  there  is  little  connection  between  the  Christ  of  Paul  and  the  Jesus  who 
actually  lived  among  men.  He  says:  "So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  gospel  evidence 
the  Christ  of  the  Apostle  Paul  bore  little  or  no  relation  to  the  actual  Jesus  of  GaUlee. " 
Continuing,  he  adds:  "All  he  has  to  say  about  Christ  could  just  as  well  have  been 
said  under  any  other  name  than  that  of  Jesus. "  This  is  an  exaggeration  of  the  real 
situation,  for  there  is  a  close  connection  between  the  Christ  of  Paul  and  the  Jesus 
of  history. 

^^J.  R.  Cohu  (St.  Paul  and  Modern  Research,  1911,  p.  17)  correctly  represents 
Paul  in  the  statement:  "The  whole  tenor  of  his  teaching  is  that  it  is  infinitely  better 
to  see  Christ  with  the  eye  of  the  soul  than  with  the  eye  of  the  body, "  but  he  undoubt- 
edly misrepresents  him  when  he  says  Paul  believed  the  knowledge  of  Christ  after  the 
flesh  hindered  rather  than  helped  the  knowledge  of  him  after  the  spirit. 

"Principal  J.  E.  Carpenter  ("Jesus  or  Christ?  p.  239)  says:  "Pauline  Christol- 
ogy cannot  be  wholly  explained  by  way  of  inference  from  the  experience  of  his  con- 
version. Steeped  in  contemporary  eschatology,  he  must  have  already  had  his  own 
conceptions  of  what  the  Messiah  would  be. " 


34  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

lived  in  an  important  Greek  center,  and  he  must  have  been  familiar 
with  the  savior-deities  of  the  mystery  religions.  It  is  very  probable 
that  the  Greek  notion  that  the  deities  enter  into  men  and  take  posses- 
sion of  them  influenced  Paul  in  the  development  of  his  thought  of  the 
Christ  who  took  possession  of  him. 

Paul's  contact  with  the  broader  life  of  the  Gentile  world  must  have 
broadened  his  idea  of  the  Messiah.  Nationalism  must  have  dropped 
into  the  background  somewhat,  and  in  his  thinking  he  must  have  empha- 
sized the  ethical  and  spiritual  mission  of  the  Messiah.  It  is  barely 
probable  that  the  possibiUty  that  he  was  to  be  the  Messiah  of  all  those 
who  were  living  righteous  Uves,  regardless  of  whether  they  were  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  had  been  suggested  to  his  mind. 

(c)  His  pre-Christian   thought   about   Christ. 

Paul  had  known  of  Christ  before  the  time  of  his  conversion,  but 
his  knowledge  had  not  been  sympathetic.  He  had  regarded  Jesus  as  an 
impostor,  and  he  had  thought  the  Christ  whom  the  Christians  worshipped 
was  a  delusion.  He  must  have  heard  the  Christians  whom  he  had  been 
persecuting  tell  the  story  of  Jesus,  and  he  had  witnessed  their  faith 
in  the  heavenly  Christ.  He  must  have  realized  that  they  identified 
Jesus  with  the  Messiah  whom  the  Jews  were  expecting,  and  that  they 
believed  he  was  still  living.  Paul  must  have  understood  that  these 
Christians  whom  he  was  persecuting  placed  the  Christ  above  all  other 
beings,  except  God.  They  not  only  worshipped  him,  and  devoted  their 
lives  to  get  others  to  worship  him,  but  they  were  willing  to  die  for  their 
faith  in  him. 

(d)  His  own  personal  experience. 

Paul's  s)anpathetic  knowledge  of  Christ  began  with  his  conversion. 
Through  some  wonderful  experience  Paul  was  changed  from  an  enemy  of 
Christ  into  his  most  zealous  advocate.  Many  theories  have  been 
advanced  to  explain  this  experience,  but  it  is  evident  that  Paul  inter- 
preted it  as  a  revelation  of  Christ.  At  that  time  he  began  to  know 
Christ  according  to  the  Spirit,  and  this  was  fundamental  to  the  develop- 
ment of  his  Christian  thought. 

According  to  Paul's  own  statement,  he  had  not  found  peace  and  as- 
surance  while  he  was  living  under  law,  and  he  must  have  felFthat  these 
persecuted  L^hristians  had  what  he  had  been  seeking,  but  had  failed  to 
find.  These  feelings  must  have  raised  questionings  in  his  mind:  could 
it  be  possible  that  these  Christians  were  right,  and  he  was  wrong.  These 
conflicts  in  his  soul  prepared  him  for  the  experiences  which  he  inter- 
preted as  a  revelation  of  Christ.     If  his  persecuting  career,  in  connection 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  35 

with  his  Messianic  ideas  and  his  knowledge  of  the  Christ  which  he  had 
gained  from  the  Christians,  prepared  him  for  the  experiences  which  he 
interpreted  as  a  revelation  of  Christ  in  him,  it  was  natural  that  he 
should  identify  this  Christ  whom  he  had  come  to  know,  not  only  with 
the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  but  also  with  the  Jesus  whose  followers  he  had 
been  persecuting.^^  This  experience  of  Christ,  as  Paul  interpreted  it, 
and  the  experiences  of  the  after  years  were  authoritative  for  him,  and 
the  one  article  of  his  creed  was,  Christ  is  Lord. 

We  cannot  be  absolutely  certain  about  the  development  of  Paul's 
Christology,  but  we  can  make  a  very  probable  estimate  of  it.  As  a 
Pharisee,  he  had^beheved  in  the  Messiah,  and  he  had  Igoked-iorward  to- 
his  coming.  His  contact  with  the  thought  of  the  Greek  world  had 
broadened  his  conception  of  the  Messiah,  and  had  prepared  him  for 
still  more  radical  changes  in  the  future.  His  failure  to  find  satisfaction 
while  trying  to  servejGod  according  to  the  law,  and  his  contact  with  the 
Christians,  who  had  apparently  found  peace  in  the  Christ  whom  they 
were  worshipping,  prepared  him  for  an  upheaval  in  his  own  experience. 
The  statements  which  he  had  heard  the  Christians  make  about  the  Christ 
they  were  worshipping,  and  whom  they  said  was  Jesus  who  had  been 
exalted  to  God's  right  hand,  and  whom  they  identified  with  the  Jewish 
Messiah,  led  him  to  make  the  same  identification  when  the  great  up- 
heaval came  in  his  soul.  All  these  influences  furnished  the  basis  for 
what  was  the  beginning  of  Paul's  experience  of  the  heavenly  Christ,  and 
during  years  of  Christian  living  and  service  the  Christ  of  faith,  as  ex- 
pressed  in   his   epistles,   was   developed. 

The  Historical  Jesus 
a.  Statement  of  Paul's  teaching. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  in  recent  years  concerning  Paul's 
knowledge  of  the  historical  Jesus,  and  of  his  estimate  of  the  life  and 
teachings  of  Jesus,  as  he  knew  them.^^  One  of  the  passages  around 
which  the  discussion  of  the  value  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  for 

^*  R.  J.  Campbell  ("Jesus  or  Christ?"  p.  184)  says:  "It  is  not  to  be  ignored  that 
in  the  case  of  such  a  man  as  Paul  personal  experience  and  the  needs  of  his  own  religious 
life  had  a  dominating  shaping  influence  upon  his  thought,  but  the  molds  of  that  thought 
were  already  supplied  to  him."  According  to  Campbell,  Paul  built  up  the  Christ- 
idea  out  of  Jewish  and  Hellenistic  elements  which  had  entered  into  his  intellectual 
training,  and  then  imposed  this  concept  on  the  historic  figure  of  Jesus. 

^5  Benj.  W.  Bacon  ("Jesus  or  Christ?"  p.  213)  says  the  teachings  and  doings  of 
Jesus'  earthly  career  were  for  Paul  a  subordinate  feature  of  the  apostolic  message. 
According  to  Bacon,  Paul  thought  of  Christ's  earthly  career  as  a  brief  interruption 
of  his  heavenly  existence,  and  his  interest  was  in  "the  Lord  from  heaven." 


36  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

)Paul  has  centered  is  II  Cor.  5: 16:^"  Wherefore  as  for  us,  we  know  no 
man  henceforth  after  the  flesh:  even  though  we  have  known  Christ 
after  the  flesh,  yet  now  we  know  him  so  no  more. "  Some  writers  think 
that  passage  impUes  that  Paul  had  no  interest  in  the  Christ  who  Hved 
here  on  the  earth.^^  This  passage  is  one  which  is  difficult  to  interpret, 
and  various  explanations  have  been  suggested.^^  It  is  very  evident 
that  Paul's  contrast  was  not  between  the  earthly  Jesus  and  the  heavenly 
Christ,  but  between  the  fleshly  Christ  and  the  spiritual  Christ.  He  says 
he  had  once  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  and  he  was  undoubtedly  re- 
ferring to  the  time  previous  to  his  conversion.  At  this  time  he  regarded 
Christ  as  an  impostor,  hence  he  persecuted  his  followers.  Since  the 
time  of  his  conversion  he  knew  a  spiritual  Christ,  whom  he  worshipped, 
and  to  whose  service  his  life  was  consecrated.  Before  his  conversion 
he  knew  this  Christ  after  the  flesh,  but  since  his  conversion  he  knew 
this  Christ  after  the  spirit. 

It  is  a  question  how  much  Paul  knew  about  the  life  and  teachings 
of  Jesus.  There  are  times  when  we  would  expect  him  to  quote  the 
statements  of  the  Master  that  he  did  not  do  it.  In  his  controversy 
with  the  Judaizers,  the  teachings  of  Jesus  would  have  been  unanswerable 
argument;  and  the  fact  that  he  did  not  quote  the  words  of  the  Master 
concerning  unclean  meats  or  traditions  would  indicate,  so  some  writers 
contend,  that  he  did  not  know  about  this  teaching.  There  is  another 
explanation  for  Paul's  silence  which  is  more  probable.    The  vital 

■  issue,  raised  by  the  Judaizers,  was  in  regard  to  circumcigion,  andjesus 
was_silent  on  this  question;  and  the  fact  that  he  had  been  circumcised 
according  to  the  law,  and  had  said  nothing  against  circumcision  would 
argue  against  Paul's  position  rather  than  in  his  favor.^^ 

^*  Albert  Schweitzer  (Geschichte  der  Paulinischen  Forsching,  1911,  p.  191;  English 
translation,  1912,  pp.  245  f.)  holds  that  Paul  was  referring  to  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus, 
and  that  he  was  expressing  the  general  principle  that  he  had  no  interest  in  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus,  or  in  his  earthly  life.  According  to  Schweitzer,  Paul's  only  concern  was 
in  the  primitive  eschatological  beliefs  which  he  had  inherited.  He  suggests  an  in- 
genious, but  improbable  explanation  for  what  he  thinks  is  Paul's  lack  of  interest  in 
the  historical  Jesus.  He  says:  "It  is  as  though  he  held  that  between  the  present 
world-period  and  that  in  which  Jesus  lived  and  taught  there  exists  no  link  of  connec- 
tion, and  was  convinced  that  since  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Lord  conditions 
were  present  which  were  so  wholly  new  that  they  made  his  teaching  inappUcable. " 

"  For  a  statement  of  the  different  interpretations  see  Int.  Crit.  Com.,  II  Cor., 
pp.  177  ff. 

"  H.  Weinel  ("Jesus  or  Christ?"  pp.  29  ff.)  says  Paul  did  not  appeal  to  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  in  his  struggle  for  freedom  from  the  law,  because  Jesus  was  thoroughly 
conservative  in  his  own  attitude  towards  the  law. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  37 

When  we  compare  Paul's  letters  with  the  others  which  are  found  in 
the  New  Testament,  we  must  feel  that  Paul  was  true  to  his  age  in  the 
use  which  he  made  of  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus.  He  undoubtedly 
had  more  to  say  in  his  preaching  about  the  historical  Jesus  than  he 
did  in  his  writings.  According  to  Acts,  Paul  preached  the  historical 
Jesus  in  about  the  same  manner  as  did  Peter,  and  Stephen,  and  Philip; 
but  it  is  impossible  to  state  just  how  much  of  these  sermons  are  the 
words  of  Paul,  and  how  much  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  author  of  the 
book.  According  to  the  tradition,  related  by  Irenaeus  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,^^  Luke  secured  much  of  the  material  for  his 
gospel  from  the  preaching  of  Paul.  He  said:  ''Matthew  also  issued  a 
written  gospel  among  the  Hebrews  in  their  own  dialect,  while  Peter 
and  Paul  were  preaching  at  Rome  and  laying  the  foundation  of  the 
church.  After  their  departure,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of 
Peter,  did  also  hand  down  to  us  in  writing  what  had  been  preached  by 
Peter.  Luke  also,  the  companion  of  Paul,  recorded  in  a  book  the  gospel 
preached  by  him. "  This  tradition  cannot  be  accepted  at  its  face  value 
as  evidence  for  the  sources  of  the  material  in  our  canonical  gospels; 
but  there  were  undoubtedly  some  historical  facts  which  were  the  basis 
of  the  tradition.  These  facts  which  were  connected  with  Paul  were: 
first,  the  historical  Jesus  held  a  prominent  place  in  Paul's  preaching; 
and  second,  the  author  of  the  third  gospel  was  a  companion  of  Paul, 
and  it  was  from  Paul's  preaching  that  he  received  the  inspiration  to 
write  a  gospel. 

While  Paul  in  his  writings  did  not  stress  the  life  and  teachings  of 
Jesus  as  we  would  expect,  he  did  give  them  a  more  prominent  place 
than  many  would  have  us  believe.  The  references  which  Paul  made  to 
the  historical  Jesus  are  all  significant.^"  He  stated  that  Jesus  was 
a  man  without  sin  (II  Cor.  5 :21) ;  that  he  was  born  of  a  woman  (Gal.  4:4), 
and  according  to  the  flesh,  he  was  of  the  seed  of  David  (Rom.  1:3). 
Paul  did  not  say  anything  about  the  circumstances  of  Christ's  birth, 
but  it  is  evident  that  he  thought  of  him  as  being  the  Son  of  God  in  a 
unique  sense,  for  he  explained  his  coming  into  the  world  as  God  sending 
forth  his  Son  (Gal.  4:4;  Rom.  8:3).  Paul  mentioned  the  fact  that  Jesus 
was  betrayed  during  the  night  (I  Cor.  11:23),  and  that  he  instituted 
the  Lord's  Supper  the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed.  He  stated 
that  Jesus  died  by  crucifixion,  and  that  the  Jews  were  responsible  for  his 

'8  Against  Heresies,  111:1. 

"H.  Weinel  ("Jesus  or  Christ?"  p.  29)  holds  that  Paul  tells  us  enough  about 
Jesus  to  be  sufficient  for  our  Christianity  without  the  Gospels. 


38  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

death;  and  that  he  was  buried,  and  was  raised,  and  after  his  resurrec- 
tion made  a  number  of  appearances.  Paul  not  only  referred  to  these 
facts  connected  with  the  life  of  Jesus,  but  he  also  made  use  of  his  teach- 
ings. He  called  attention  to  Christ's  teaching  concerning  divorce 
(I  Cor.  7:10),  and  concerning  the  right  of  those  who  preach  the  gospel 
to  Hve  of  the  gospel  (I  Cor.  9:14).  Although  Paul's  interest  was  in 
the  heavenly  Christ,  yet  he  evidently  believed  Jesus  had  lived  a  real 
life,  and  had  brothers  in  the  flesh  (I  Cor.  9:5;  Gal.  1:19).  In  addition 
to  these  direct  statements,  there  are  many  passages  in  Paul's  writings 
which  seem  to  have  been  based  on  the  teachings  of  Jesus.^^  Instead  of 
Paul  having  no  interest  in  the  historical  Jesus,  he  was  vitally  concerned 
about  some  of  the  incidents  in  his  life.  Instead  of  Paul  believing  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  were  not  applicable  to  his  time,  he  sometimes  quoted 
them  as  authoritative, 
b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  knowledge  of  Jesus. 

Whence  did  Paul  derive  his  information  concerning  Jesus?  is  a 
question  which  is  being  asked  by  many  in  our  day.  In  I  Corinthians 
(15:3-8)  he  mentioned  the  facts  of  the  death,  burial,  resurrection,  and 
appearances  of  Jesus,  and  in  emphasizing  these  facts,  he  said:  "I 
delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  also  I  received";  but  he  did 
not  state  the  source  from  which  he  had  received  that  which  he  delivered. 
In  his  teaching  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper  (I  Cor.  11:23),  he  said: 
"For  I  received  of  the  Lord  {airo  tov  Kvplov)  that  which  also  I  delivered 
unto  you. "  d7r6  tov  Kvplov  does  not  determine  for  us  the  manner  in 
which  Paul  received  his  information.^^  Some  writers  maintain  that  on 
a  matter  of  so  great  importance  as  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  not  unreason- 
able to  suppose  that  Paul  should  have  received  a  divine  revelation. 
Some  even  regard  Paul  as  the  originator  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  they 
insist  that  he  made  that  claim  for  himself.  It  is  begging  the  question 
to  hold  that  Paul's  statement  in  I  Corinthians  11:23  impHes  that  he 
claimed  to  have  received  the  historical  data  concerning  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per by  means  of  a  vision  rather  than  from  tradition.  If  Paul  had  re- 
ceived his  information  through  historical  tradition,  he  would  have  felt 
that  it  came  from  Jesus,  and  that  he  was  passing  it  on  to  others.  The 
historical  data  concerning  the  instituting  of  the  Lord's  Supper  undoubt- 

2^  James  Drummond  ("Jesus  or  Christ?"  p.  198)  says  striking  passages,  like 
the  twelfth  chapter  of  Romans  or  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  I  Corinthians,  contain 
the  substance  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  though  not  adhering  so  closely  to  his  words  as 
do  the  Gospels. 

"  See  Int.  Crit.  Com. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  39 

edly  came  to  Paul  through  the  medium  of  the  primitive  disciples,  and 
their  information  came  directly  from  Jesus.  Paul  must  have  felt  that 
his  interpretation  of  the  significance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  came  from 
Christ,  and  in  the  hght  of  all  these  facts  he  could  say  to  the  Corin- 
thians: *'I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you." 

In  writing  to  the  Galatians  (1:12),  Paul  said  he  did  not  receive  his 
gospel  from  men,  but  it  came  through  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.  As 
pointed  out  in  a  previous  section,  that  statement  does  not  imply  that 
Paul  was  declaring  that  he  did  not  receive  the  historical  data  concern- 
ing the  life  of  Jesus  from  men.  These  did  not  constitute  his  gospel. 
His  gospel  was  the  conviction  that  man  is  justified  through  faith  in 
Christ,  and  this  came  with  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  him,  and  man 
had  nothing  to  do  with  that. 

Paul  must  have  had  some  knowledge  of  Jesus,  and  even  of  his  teach- 
ings before  his  conversion.  He  must  have  learned  something  about 
these  from  the  Christians  whom  he  was  persecuting,  and  a  conviction 
of  the  possibility  of  the  genuineness  of  these  claims  concerning  Christ 
must  have  been  growing  upon  him,  even  before  his  conversion,  and  this 
prepared  him  for  the  great  crisis  which  came  in  his  life.  What  Paul 
had  heard  about  Jesus  before  this  crisis  had  been  no  vital  part  of  his 
thought,  or  of  his  life  but;  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  him  made  these 
facts  living  and  vital,  and  furnished  a  sufficient  basis  for  the  beginning 
of  his  missionary  activities.  Without  the  personal  experience  of  the 
heavenly  Christ,  the  historical  Jesus  could  have  meant  but  little  to 
Paul;  but  without  the  historical  Jesus  as  a  background,  his  experience 
of  the  heavenly  Christ  could  not  have  been  possible 

Paul  had  many  opportunities  to  hear  about  Jesus  from  the  primitive 
disciples.  He  must  have  learned  something  from  the  Christians  at 
Damascus,  for  he  visited  the  Christian  community  there  (Gal.  1:17;  II 
Cor.  11:32,  33),  and  they  would  naturally  tell  him  all  they  knew  about 
their  common  leader.  Early  in  his  Christian  career,  Paul  visited  Peter 
(Gal.  1:18,  19).  Peter  had  been  a  personal  companion  of  Jesus,  and 
Paul  spent  fifteen  days  with  him,  and  it  is  not  possible  that  they  could 
have  visited  so  long  a  time  without  talking  over  all  the  events  in  the 
life  of  the  Master.  Barnabas  was  for  a  time  Paul's  companion  in 
Christian  service  (Gal.  2:1,  9),  and  he  had  been  closely  associated  with 
the  original  apostles,  and  he  must  have  learned  about  Jesus  from  them. 
It  is  not  probable  that  Barnabas  could  have  been  associated  with  the 
original  apostles  without  hearing  them  repeatedly  tell  about  Jesus, 


40  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

and  it  is  not  likely  that  he  could  have  been  associated  with  Paul  without 
telling  him  all  he  remembered  of  what  they  had  said. 

Paul  in  his  writings  mentioned  nothing  about  the  life  of  Jesus  which 
he  could  not  have  obtained  from  the  primitive  Christian  tradition, 
and  inasmuch  as  he  had  many  opportunities  to  know  the  primitive 
Christian  tradition,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  he  obtained  his  infor- 
mation from  this  source.  If  the  conclusion  that  Paul  received  the 
data  concerning  the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus  from  the  primitive 
Christian  tradition  is  justified,  then  inasmuch  as  he  quoted  these  teach- 
ings as  authoritative  and  used  these  data  as  historical,  it  is  evident 
that  he  regarded  this  tradition  as  authoritative. 

The  Death  of  Christ 
a.  Its  significance  for  Paul. 

Paul's  chief  interest  in  the  historical  Jesus  was  in  his  death  and 
resurrection.  He  made  no  use  of  his  miracles  to  prove  his  greatness, 
and  he  cited  his  teachings  only  a  few  times.  The  Christ  in  whom  Paul 
was  interested  was  the  Savior,  rather  than  the  miracle-worker,  or  even 
the  teacher.  Paul  was  more  anxious  to  know  Christ  than  he  was  to 
know  what  Christ  said  and  did.  He  was  more  anxious  to  lead  others 
to  know  Christ  than  he  was  to  tell  them  about  his  wonderful  deeds,  or 
his  subhme  teachings.  Paul  was  supremely  anxious  to  bring  men  and 
women  into  fellowship  with  "Christ's  sufferings,"  and  to  help  them  to 
know  the  power  of  his  resurrection.  His  teaching  was  the  "word  of 
the  cross, "  and  he  desired  to  know  nothing  save  Jesus  Christ  and  him 
crucified  (I  Cor.  1:18,  23;  2:2).  Paul  believed  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  were  according  to  the  Scriptures  (I  Cor.  15:3, 4),  and  that 
they  were  a  part  of  God's  great  plan.  I  He  said  it  was  the  Jews  who  killed 
Jesus  (I  Thess.  2:15),  and  yet  he  believed  his  death  was  according  to 
the  will  of  God  (Gal.  1:4).  Paul  was  convinced  that  God's  purpose  in 
permitting  the  death  of  Christ  was  to  bring  about  the  justification 
of  the  sinner  (Rom.  4:25;  I  Thess  4:14).  He  believed  Jesus  endured  the 
shame  of  the  cross  in  order  that  he  might  bless  men,  hence  the  cross 
is  the  chief  object  of  the  Christian's  glory.  According  to  Paul's  thought, 
the  death  upon  the  cross  was  the  event  of  supreme  importance  in  the 
life  of  Jesus,  and  apart  from  this,  his  life  would  have  had  no  significance.^ 
It  is  so  evident  from  a  casual  reading  of  Paul's  writings,  that  the  death 

"  George  B.  Stevens  {The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation,  1905,  p.  59,  in  inter- 
preting Paul  says:  "It  was  for  the  direct  purpose  of  dying  to  atone  for  the  sins  of 
mankind  that  he  came  into  the  world." 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  41 

of  Christ  was  of  supreme  concern  to  him  that  this  subject  needs  no 
further  discussion. 

But  when  it  comes  to  a  statement  of  what  the  death  of  Chr'st  meant 
to  Paul,  the  task  is  not  so  simple,  and  there  is  room  for  differences  of 
opinion.  Paul  did  not  have  any  theory  of  the  atonement  carefully 
worked  out,  but  there  are  some  things  in  connection  with  his  idea  of 
the  death  of  Christ  which  seem  eivdent.  He  believed  Christ  was  the 
sinless  one,  but  ''him  who  knew  no  sin  God  made  to  be  sin  on  our  behalf" 
(II  Cor.  5:21).  When  Paul  made  that  statement,  he  evidently  meant 
to  convey  the  idea  that  when  Christ  died  upon  the  cross  he  was  passing 
through  an  experience  which  belonged  to  sinful  men  rather  than  to 
himself,  and  that  he  was  doing  this  in  order  that  he  might  secure  sal- 
vation for  men.  Paul  regarded  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  demonstration 
of  the  righteousness  of  God  (Rom.  3:21-26).  By  setting  forth  Jesus  in 
his  death,  God  could  show  himself  to  be  just  in  having  passed  over  sin, 
and  he  could  also  show  himself  to  be  the  justifier  of  him  that  hath  faith 
in  Jesus.     Christ's  death  was  thus  all  important  in  the  plan  of  God. 

Paul  used  three  different  terms  in  his  references  to  the  significance 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  study  of  these 
terms  in  order  to  understand  his  position.  One  of  these  words  is  iXaaTrjpiov 
which  means  either  a  propitiatory  offering,  or  a  means  of  expiation. 
The  most  important  passage  where  this  word  occurs  is  Rom.  3:25: 
"Whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith,  in  his  blood, 
to  show  his  righteousness  because  of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done 
aforetime,  in  the  forebearance  of  God. "  Some  writers  hold  that  iXaaTT]- 
piov  in  this  passage  has  the  same  meaning  as  in  Heb.  9:5,  where  it  denotes 
the  mercy  seat  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant.^^  According  to  this  theo- 
ry, the  death  of  Christ  expressed  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  mercy. 

This  interpretation,  however,  does  not  adequately  express  PauFs 
thought  in  this  passage,  for  God  set  forth  Christ  in  his  blood  to  be  a  pro- 
pitiation to  show  his  lighteousness.  The  etymological  meaning  of  the 
word  is,  ''a  means  of  rendering  favorable,"^^  and  that  is  undoubtedly  the 
sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  this  passage.  Paul  did  not  think  of  God  as 
being  satisfied  because  the  blood  of  Christ  appeased  him;  but  his  death 
was  propitiatory  because  it  adequately  expressed  God's  wrath  against 
sin,  and  revealed  his  grace  to  the    sinner.     Paul  believed  the  race  had 

2*  For  a  brief  discussion  of  this  position  see  George  B .  Stevens,  The  Theology  of 
the  New  Testament,  1910,  pp.  412  ff. 

^  See  George  B.  Stevens,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation,  1905,  p.  62. 


42  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

been  resting  under  the  wrath  of  God  because  of  sin,  and  God  had  been 
forbearing  in  the  expression  of  his  wrath.  Before  this  forbearance  could 
be  changed  into  forgiveness,  God  had  to  be  propitiated  by  an  expression 
of  his  righteousness.  Paul  believed  that  men  are  saved  from  the  wrath 
of  God  by  the  means  of  the  death  of  Christ,  but  it  is  not  probable  that 
he  regarded  the  crucifixion  as  a  manifestation  of  God's  wrath  against 
Christ.  Because  Christ  had  suffered  the  penalty  of  sin,  his  death  was 
regarded  as  a  vindication  of  the  wrath  of  God  against  sin.  Christ  was 
made  sin  on  man's  account,  and  because  he  suffered  the  consequences  of 
sin,  God's  righteousness  was  vindicated.  Inasmuch  as  the  divine  right- 
eousness was  adequately  expressed  in  the  death  of  Christ,  God  could,  with- 
out having  his  integrity  questioned,  deal  with  men  on  the  basis  of  faith. 
Another  term  which  is  used  in  Paul's  discussion  of  the  significance 
of  the  death  of  Christ  is  ctTroXurpcoo-ts,  which  means:  "A  releasing  effected 
by  payment  of  ransom;  redemptiog^  deliverance,  Uberation  procured 
by  the  payment  of  a  ransom."^  He  spoke  of  the  ''redemption  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus"  (Rom.  3:24),  and  he  referred  to  Christ  as  having  been 
made  unto  us  redemption  (I  Cor.  1:30).  Paul  thought  Christ'  spur- 
posejn  comingjato-th^  W<^^ld  "g^^p'  to  "rpHppm-J:hejiTrT_tJTq.tJHtej:e--iindar 
the  law"  (^li4;4,  5),  and  heJelt  IhatChrist  redeemed  men  from  the 


cufse^oTtheJawLbyJiecoming  a  curse  for  them  (Gair3:13),  and  his  state- 
ment makes  it  evident  tHaTiiC'  bcUcved  it  was  in  the  crucifixion  that 
Christ  became  a  curse.    Paul  told  the  Corinthians  they  were  not  their 
I  own,  for  they  were  bought  with  a  price  (I  Cor.  6:20),  and  he  undoubtedly 
!  thought  of  Christ  as  being  the  purchase  price.    Paul  regarded  man  as 
\  having  been  in  bondage  to  sin  and  the  law,  and  Christ's  death  as  the 
1  ransom  price  to  deliver  him  from  this  bondage.     By  becoming  a  curse 
for  men  and  saving  them  from  bondage,  Christ  purchased  men  for  him- 
self, and  hence  they  owe  him  eternal  allegiance. 

The  third  term  which  must  be  considered,  if  we  are  to  have  a  cor- 
rect impression  of  what  the  death  of  Christ  meant  to  Paul,  is  KaraWayif, 
which  means,  ''adjustment  of  a  difference,  reconcihatoin,  restoration 
to  favor.  "2^  The  most  important  passage  where  this  term  occurs  is 
Rom.  5:10,  11:  "For  if,  while  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to 
God  through  the  death  of  his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled,  shall 
we  be  saved  by  his  life;  and  not  only  so,  but  we  also  rejoice  in  God 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  we  have  now  received 
the  reconciliation."    Another  important  passage  is  II  Cor.  5:18-21: 

"  See  Thayer's  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament, 
"See  Thayer's  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament, 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  43 

"  But  all  things  are  of  God,  who  reconciled  us  to  himself  through  Christ, 
and  gave  unto  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation;  to  wit,  that  God  was 
in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  reckoning  unto  them 
their  trespasses,  and  having  committed  unto  us  the  word  of  reconcilia- 
tion. We  are  ambassadors  therefore  on  behalf  of  Christ,  as  though 
God  were  entreating  by  us:  we  beseech  you  on  behalf  of  Christ,  be  ye 
reconciled  to  God.  Him  who  knew  no  sin  he  made  to  be  sin  on  our 
behaK;  that  we  might  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him. "  These 
passages  are  so  important  that  they  have  been  quoted  in  full.  The 
significant  question  in  this  connection  is  concerning  the  extent  of  recon- 
ciliation. Did  Paul  mean  to  imply  that  God  was  reconciled  by  the  death 
of  Christ?  or  did  reconcilation  include  only  man?  or  did  it  include  both 
God  and  man?  The  Corinthian  passage  seems  to  place  the  stress  on 
man's  need  of  reconciliation.  In  this  passage,  Paul  represents  God 
as  being  in  Christ  for  the  purpose  of  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself. 
He  represents  God  as  entreating  men  through  his  ambassadors  on 
behalf  of  Christ  to  be  reconciled.  This,  however,  expresses  God's 
attitude  as  a  result  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  Paul  undoubtedly  beUeved 
Christ's  death  served  the  purpose  of  reconciHng  God  as  well  as  man. 
He  was  convinced  that  sin  was  a  barrier  separating  God  from  man,  as 
well  as  man  from  God.  The  death  of  Christ  removed  this  barrier,  and 
God  could  then  deal  with  men  on  the  basis  of  grace.  In  the  death  of 
Christ,  God  was  reconciled,  and  he  no  longer  reckoned  unto  men  their 
trespasses.  Since  Christ  was  made  sin  on  man's  behalf,  it  was  possible 
for  man  to  "become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  Through  his 
ambassadors,  God  is  entreating  men  to  accept  the  death  of  Christ,  and 
live  in  friendly  relationship.  The  death  of  Christ  was  not  only  an 
expression  of  God's  wrath  against  sin,  but  it  was  also  a  commendation 
of  his  love  for  the  sinners  (Rom.  5:8). 

In  addition  to  this  judicial  statement  of  the  significance  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  Paul  also  had  a  mystical  notion  which  found  frequent 
expression  in  his  writings.  Christ  in  his  death  was  closely  connected 
with  humanity,  in  whose  behalf  he  was  suffering.  Paul  beUeved  that  as 
Adam  represented  the  natural  humanity,  so  Christ  represented  the  spir- 
itual humanity  (Rom.  5:15-19;  I  Cor.  15:45).  When  Adam  sinned,  all 
sinned;  and  when  Christ  died,  all  died  (II  Cor.  5:14).  Paul  beUeved 
he  shared  the  experiences  of  his  Lord,  and  when  Christ  was  crucified, 
he  was  crucified  with  him  (Gal.  2:20). 

.  Paul  regarded  the  death  of  Christ  as  propitiating  God,  because  it 
[enabled  him  to  express  his  righteousness;  and  as  a  redemption,  because 


44  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

it  delivered  man  from  the  bondage  of  law  and  of  sin;  and  as  a  recon- 
ciliation, because  it  enabled  God  to  deal  with  men  according  to  his 
grace,  and  it  also  turned  men  from  an  attitude  of  rebellion  to  one  of 
love.  But  while  Paul  used  these  judicial  terms  to  describe  his  view 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  he  did  not  think  of  the  crucifixion  as  being  merely 
a  juridical  proceeding.  It  was  not  merely  to  cancel  guilt,  or  pay  a 
debt;  it  was  to  serve  an  ethical  purpose.  Paul  thought  of  the  death 
of  Christ  as  not  only  saving  man  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  but  as  giving 
him  victory  over  sin.  He  believed  the  individual  is  so  closely  united 
to  Christ  that  he  is  crucified  with  him,  and  that  he  is  also  raised  with 
him.  Paul  did  not  consider  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  isolated  event; 
he  thought  of  it  in  connection  with  his  life,  and  he  also  associated  with 
it  his  resurrection.  He  said,  "We  are  saved  by  his  life  (Rom.  5:10), 
and  he  believed  Christ  "was  raised  for  our  justification"  (Rom.  4:25). 
b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
(a).  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

In  making  a  study  of  the  development  of  Paul's  conception  of  the 
significance  of  the  death  of  Christ,  it  is  necessary  to  begin  with  the 
idea  of  the  Messiah  which  he  had  as  a  Pharisee.  Before  he  became  a 
Christian,  he  had  been  looking  for  a  Messiah  who  was  to  be  the  incar- 
nation of  power  and  glory.  He  was  to  be  so  great  that  he  would  be 
able  to  destroy  his  enemies  by  the  word  of  his  mouth.  There  was  no 
place  for  suffering  in  his  notion  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  was  suflSciehr proof  that  he  wasji-n  impostor.  The  Messiah 
could  not  suffer,  and  This  Jesus  had  died  in  dishonor  upon  a  cross.  The 
contribution  made  by  his  Messianic  inheritance  was  negative,  but 
as  will  be  pointed  out  later,  this  played  an  important  part  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Paul's  idea  of  the  significance  of  Christ's  death. 

Paul  inherited  from  the  Jewish  religion  another  important  element, 
which  furnished  material  out  of  which  his  concept  of  the  significance 
of  the  death  of  Christ  was  formed,  and  this  was  in  connection  with  the 
animal  sacrifices  in  the  temple  worship.  It  is  difficult  to  state  just 
what  these  sacrifices  meant  to  the  Jews  of  the  New  Testament  period, 
but  it  is  quite  probable  that  they  emphasized  God's  displeasure  towards 
sin,  and  were  regarded  as  a  means  appointed  by  God  for  the  purpose  of 
expressing  contrition.  The  sacrifice  must  have  been  thought  of  as 
being  in  some  sense  a  substitution.  The  worshipper  who  brought  his 
sacrifice  felt  that  God  would  accept  it  as  a  substitute  for  the  obedience 
which  he  should  have  rendered. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  45 

There  is  still  another  element,  which  Paul  inherited  from  Judaism, 
that  must  be  taken  into  account  in  making  a  genetic  study  of  Paul's 
doctrine  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  that  is  the  prophetic  idea  of  sal- 
vation by  vicarious  suffering  on  the  part  of  others.  The  most  impor- 
tant illustration  of  this  idea  is  the  suffering  servant  of  Jehovah — passage 
in  Isa.  52:13-53:12.  The  prophet  felt  that  the  faithful  were  suffering 
for  the  wrongs  of  the  disobedient,  and  he  interpreted  this  suffering 
as  a  divine  chastisement.  Jehovah  was  making  the  innocent  to  suffer 
for  the  guilty,  and  his  purpose  in  this  was  the  saving  of  the  nation. 
Thus  the  persecuted  remnant,  which  represents  the  ideal  nation,  be- 
comes the  savior  of  the  disobedient.  It  would  be  easy  for  one  who 
understood  this  prophetic  idea  of  vicarious  suffering  for  the  deliverance 
of  others  to  grasp  the  conception  of  a  divine  being  suffering  for  the  race. 

As  a  Jew,  Paul  had  believed  in  a  Messiah  who  was  to  come  in  glory 
to  bring  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  According  to  his  thinking,  the  Messiah 
was  to  be  so  great  that  suffering  would  be  entirely  foreign  to  him.  Paul 
also  believed  men  could  offer  sacrifices  for  sin,  and  that  these  sacrifices 
were  pleasing  to  God.  He  also  felt  that  it  was  possible  for  a  nation, 
and  for  individuals,  to  suffer  in  behalf  of  others.  Any  circumstance 
which  would  lead  him  to  associate  the  significance  of  animal  sacrifice 
and  the  idea  of  vicarious  suffering  with  his  notion  of  the  Messiah, 
which  he  had  as  a  Jew,  would  lay  a  good  foundation  for  his  doctrine  of 
the  death  of  Christ, 
(b)  The  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

In  making  a  study  of  the  development  of  the  significance  of  the 
death  of  Christ  for  Paul,  we  must  take  into  account  his  Greek  environ- 
ment, as  well  as  his  Jewish  inheritance.  The  mystery-cults  had  extended 
over  the  Mediterranean  world  before  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era,  and  the  idea  of  redemption  through  a  deity  who  had  died  and  was 
raised  was  prominent  in  all  these  religions.  The  Phrygian  cult  of  the 
Mother  of  the  Gods,  Cybele,  and  her  consort  Attis,  was  known  by  the 
Greeks  as  early  as  the  sixth  century  B.  C,  and  it  was  introduced  into 
Rome  by  an  official  act  of  the  senate  in  204  B.  C,  and  in  a  short  time 
a  temple  was  erected  for  the  mother-goddess  on  the  Palatine.  According 
to  all  the  myths,  Attis  died,  and  Cybele  mourned  until  he  was  restored 
to  life.  His  triumph  over  death  was  the  basis  of  this  Phrygian  religion, 
and  around  it  developed  a  ritual,  which  was  supposed  to  bring  the 
same  victory  to  men  which  the  deity  had  obtained.^^ 

28  For  a  brief  discussion  of  Cybele  and  Attis,  and  for  a  select  bibliography  of 
original  sources,  see  "Shirley  Jackson  Case,"  The  Evolution  of  Early  Christianity , 
1914,  pp.  302  ff. 


46  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Perhaps  the  Egyptian  mysteries  were  more  widely  disseminated 
throughout  the  Mediterranean  world,  and  exerted  a  greater  influence 
upon  the  people,  than  any  of  the  other  mysteries.  Isis  and  Osiris  were 
the  most  important  of  the  Egyptian  deities,  and  Serapis  was  later 
introduced.  This  reHgion  spread  over  Egypt  at  an  early  time,  and 
international  relations  with  the  Ptolemies  led  to  its  introduction  into 
other  parts  of  the  Mediterranean  world.  These  Egyptian  deities  were 
worshipped  extensively  throughout  the  Graeco-Roman  world  for  two 
or  three  centuries  before  the  Christian  era.  A  temple  had  been  erected 
to  Serapis  at  the  base  of  the  Acropolis  in  Athens.  Merchants  and 
sailors  carried  these  mysteries  to  various  centers  around  the  Mediter- 
ranean. Serapis  was  worshipped  in  Puteoli  as  early  as  105  B.  C,  as 
a  city  ordinance  of  that  year  mentions  a  Serapeum.  Isis  was  worshipped 
in  Pompeii  before  63  B.  C,  for  a  temple  of  Isis  was  destroyed  by  earth- 
quake that  year.  These  Egyptian  mysteries  were  introduced  into  Rome, 
although  they  were  opposed  by  the  authorities.  The  altars  of  Isis 
were  destroyed  by  the  senate  in  58  B.  C.  The  records  show  that  the 
devotees  of  these  Egyptian  rehgions  were  frequently  persecuted,  but 
these  rehgions  became  more  popular  with  persecution.  The  very 
frequency  of  these  persecutions  indicates  their  futility.  The  Egyptian 
religion  became  so  popular  that  CaHgula  built  a  temple  to  Isis  in  the 
Campus  Martinius,  and  Vespasian  and  Titus  passed  the  night,  before 
their  triumphal  procession,  in  the  temple  of  Isis. 

The  cult  of  Isis  and  Osiris  was  originally  a  nature  religion,  and 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  deity  typified  the  change  of  the  sea- 
sons. Plutarch  gives  the  fullest  account  of  the  myth  of  Osiris,  and, 
according  to  his  account,  Osiris  was  the  good  king  of  the  Egjrptians, 
and  his  death  was  accomphshed  by  a  trick  of  his  brother  Set.  Isis 
recovered  the  parts  of  his  dismembered  body,  and  they  were  restored 
to  life.'^^  According  to  the  various  myths,  the  story  of  Osiris  is  that 
of  a  deity  who  died  and  was  raised  from  the  dead.  According  to  one 
source,  the  gods  say  to  him:  "Though  thou  departest,  thou  comest 
again;  though  thou  sleepest,  thou  wakest  again;  though  thou  diest, 
thou  livest  again.  "^^  The  death  and  resurrection  of  the  deity  were 
represented  in  a  play  which  was  enacted  openly,  and  this  must  have 
made  a  deep  impression  on  those  who  witnessed  it.  In  earUer  times 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  deity  were  related  to  the  coming  of 

a>  Plutarch,  Pomp.  13,  18. 

»« See  George  Foot  Moore,  History  of  Religions,  1913,  p.  589. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  47 

winter  and  the  return  of  summer,  but  in  the  later  Hellenistic  times  they 
were  associated  with  the  experiences  of  the  soul  of  man.  By  uniting 
himself  with  the  deity,  the  individual  might  conquer  death  as  Osiris 
had  conquered  it. 

There  were  other  deities,  like  Adonis,  whose  death  and  resurrection 
were  depicted  in  the  ritual  of  their  worshippers.  These  rehgions  had 
a  large  following  in  the  Graeco-Roman  world  of  Paul's  day,  and  they 
were  especially  popular  in  the  great  centers  like  Tarsus.  Paul  must 
have  seen  enacted  the  dramas  which  represented  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  the  deities,  and  perhaps  unconscious  to  himself,  he  was  influ- 
enced by  them.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  during  his  pre-Christian 
life,  he  saw  any  connection  between  the  death  and  resurrection  of  these 
pagan  deities  and  his  own  Messiah,  but  an  impression  had  been  made 
which  would  lead  him  to  make  the  connection  if  he  should  ever  face  the 
proper  circumstances.  Paul  was  undoubtedly  influenced  in  his  doctrine 
of  the  death  of  Christ  by  the  mystery-religions.  While  the  death  of 
the  Messiah  was  foreign  to  the  thought  of  the  Jew,  the  death  of  the 
deity,  who  was  regarded  as  redeemer,  was  fundamental  in  the  thought 
of  the  Greek  who  adhered  to  the  mystery-cults.  Jesus  was  for  the 
PauUne  Christians  the  Redeemer  who  had  passed  through  death  to 
life,  and  they  beheved  that  men  and  women,  by  entering  into  fellow- 
ship with  his  sufferings,  might  know  the  power  of  his  resurrection.  The 
Greeks  beheved  that  men  could  enter  into  fellowship  with  the  deity 
so  that  they  could  share  his  sufferings  and  thus  participate  in  his  glory. 
Paul  had  the  same  conviction,  for  he  not  only  believed  he  had  died 
with  Christ,  but  he  also  believed  he  had  been  raised  with  him.  Some 
recent  writers  would  lead  us  to  feel  that  Paul's  Greek  environment 
was  sufficient  in  itself  to  explain  his  conception  of  the  significance  of 
Christ's  death.^^  Paul's  Greek  environment  was  important,  but  there 
are  other  elements  which  were  equally  important,  and  to  neglect  these 
is  to  fail  to  understand  him. 

•^  Alfred  Loisy  {Hibbert  Journal,  Oct.  1911,  p.  51)  in  his  summary  of  what  Christ 
meant  to  Paul,  fairiy  represents  these  writers.  He  says:  "He  was  a  savior-god, 
after  the  manner  of  an  Osiris,  an  Attis,  a  Mithra.  Like  them,  he  belonged  by  origin 
to  the  celestial  worid;  like  them,  he  had  made  his  appearance  on  the  earth;  Uke  them, 
he  had  accomphshed  a  work  of  universal  redemption,  efficacious  and  typical;  like 
Adonis,  Osiris,  and  Attis,  he  had  died  a  violent  death,  and,  like  them,  he  had  been 
restored  to  life;  like  them  he  had  prefigured  in  his  lot  that  of  the  human  beings  who 
should  take  part  in  his  worship,  and  commemorate  his  mystic  enterprise;  hke  them, 
he  had  predestined,  prepared,  and  assured  the  salvation  of  those  who  became  partners 
in  his  passion." 


48  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

(c)  Primitive  Christian  tradition. 

Paul  must  have  been  influenced  in  the  development  of  his  thought 
about  the  death  of  Christ  by  the  tradition  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
concerning  his  own  death,  as  well  as  by  the  teachings  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians themselves.  He  must  have  heard  the  Christians  whom  he  was 
persecuting  glorify  the  Christ  who  had  died  upon  the  cross,  and  empha- 
size his  death  as  a  part  of  the  divine  plan;  and  while  this,  at  that  time, 
seemed  to  him  like  blasphemy,  at  a  later  time,  when  he  was  passing 
through  a  soul  struggle,  it  served  to  amalgamate  his  Greek  ideas  with 
his  Jewish  inheritance. 

According  to  our  canonical  Gospels,  Jesus  repeatedly  referred  to 
his  death,  and  connected  it  with  the  salvation  of  men.  He  spoke  about 
giving  his  life  a  "ransom  for  many"  (Mk.  10:45),  and  in  instituting 
the  Lord^s  Supper,  he  designated  the  wine  as  "my  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant, which  is  poured  out  for  many  unto  the  remission  of  sins"  (Mt. 
26:28).  In  the  sermons,  recorded  in  the  first  part  of  Acts,  the  death  of 
Christ  is  connected  with  salvation.  It  is  impossible  to  state  to  what 
extent  the  sayings  of  Jesus  concerning  his  death,  as  they  are  recorded 
in  our  canonical  Gospels,  were  influenced  by  later  thought,  and  to 
what  extent  the  sermons  recorded  in  the  first  part  of  Acts  represent 
the  thought  of  the  writer  of  the  book;  but  from  a  study  of  the  Gospels 
and  Acts,  it  seems  that  one  is  able  to  trace  a  development  in  the  pri- 
mitive Christian  thought  of  the  death  of  Christ.  At  first,  even  the 
suggestion  of  the  death  of  Jesus  was  a  stumbling-block  to  the  disciples, 
and  when  his  crucifixion  actually  came,  their  ideals  crumbled  about  them. 
They  had  hoped  Jesus  was  "he  who  should  redeem  Israel,"  but  when 
he  died  upon  the  cross,  they  felt  they  had  been  deceived.  Their  convic- 
tion that  Jesus  was  alive  changed  the  whole  situation.  While  they  still 
believed  the  crucifixion  was  a  crime  committed  by  the  Jews,  they  felt 
that  God  had  overruled  their  crime  for  good.  They  now  realized  that 
instead  of  the  crucifixion  being  a  defeat  of  the  divine  plan,  it  was  accord- 
ing to  God's  will,  and  was  for  the  accomphshment  of  salvation.  In 
the  light  of  this  conviction,  they  re-read  the  Scriptures  and  found  that 
they  should  have  been  expecting  the  very  things  which  had  happened, 
for  the  crucifixion  was  according  to  the  "determinate  counsel"  of  God, 
and  the  prophets  had  foretold  it. 
(d)  His  own  personal  experience. 

The  conception  of  the  Messiah  which  Paul  had  when  he  was  perse- 
cuting the  Christians  was  completely  changed  by  the  experience  which 
he  interpreted  as  a  revelation  of  Christ  in  him.    Having  identified  the 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  49 

Christ,  who  had  been  revealed  in  him,  with  Jesus,  who  had  died  upon 
the  cross,  and  with  the  Jewish  Messiah,  it  was  then  necessary  for  him  to 
reconstruct  his  thinking  about  the  crucifixion.  The  cross  was  a  stum- 
bUng-block  for  Saul,  the  Pharisee;  but  it  became  the  chief  object  of 
glory  for  Paul,  the  Christian.  PauFs  creative  personality,  by  bringing 
together  and  reconstructing  and  unifying  the  material  furnished  by  a 
Jewish  inheritance,  a  Greek  environment,  the  primitive  Christian 
tradition  about  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  his  own  wonderful  experience, 
produced  a  conception  of  the  cross  which  was  different  from  any  that 
had  hitherto  been  held.  It  was  no  longer  a  stumbling-block,  as  it  was 
to  the  Jews,  but  it  was  the  basis  of  the  world's  hope;  it  was  not  something 
which  needed  to  be  explained  or  justified,  as  it  was  for  the  early  Christians, 
but  it  was  the  heart  of  all  preaching;  it  was  not  merely  a  suffering  deity 
to  give  men  victory,  as  it  was  to  the  Greeks,  but  along  with  that  it 
reconciled  God  and  man.  Paul's  theory  of  the  death  of  Christ  was 
not  Jewish;  neither  was  it  Greek,  nor  primitive  Christian.  Elements 
from  all  these  sources  were  worked  over  in  the  mortar  of  his  own  expe- 
rience by  the  pestle  of  his  creative  personality,  and  the  result  was  a 
theory  which  was  peculiarly  his  own. 

While  Paul  had  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah,  the  Greek 
ritual,  depicting  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  deity  to  make  it 
possible  for  men  to  obtain  immortality,  would  have  but  Httle  conscious 
influence  upon  him.  He  must  have  frequently  compared  his  Messiah 
with  their  savior-god  and  perhaps  almost  unconscious  to  himself,  he 
may  have  wondered  if  they  could  possibly  be  right,  and  if  the  Messiah 
was  really  to  suffer  to  give  victory  to  men.  This  contact  with  the  Greek 
idea  of  the  savior-god,  who  died  and  was  raised  to  make  it  possible  for 
men  to  obtain  victory,  even  though  the  influence  was  unconscious  to 
himself,  prepared  him  so  that  when  he  passed  through  a  great  soul-crisis 
he  was  ready  to  accept  the  crucified  Christ,  whom  the  Christians  were 
worshipping.  This  Greek  environment  made  it  easy  for  Paul  to  identify 
the  heavenly  Christ,  whom  he  beUeved  had  been  revealed  to  him,  with 
the  crucified  Jesus.  His  Greek  environment  also  helped  to  determine 
what  the  death  of  Christ  should  mean  to  him.  The  Greek  idea  of 
sharing  in  the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  deity,  by  being  initiated 
into  fellowship  with  him,  became  fundamental  in  Paul's  thinking. 
He  believed  Christ's  death  on  the  cross  was  his  death,  and  Christ's 
resurrection  was  his  resurrection. 

Paul's  conversion  to  Christianity  and  his  acceptance  of  the  cruci- 
fied Christ  gave  many  of  his  Jewish  ideas  a  new  significance,  but  he 


50  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Still  retained  these  Jewish  ideas,  and  they  were  an  important  factor 
in  the  development  of  his  thought  of  the  death  of  Christ.  The  signifi- 
cance of  the  death  of  Christ  was  very  different  for  Paul  than  it  would 
have  been  if  he  had  been  a  Greek,  instead  of  a  Jew.  After  he  had 
accepted  the  crucified  Christ,  he  still  beheved  that  when  he  endured 
the  shameful  death  on  the  cross  he  "became  a  curse,"  but  he  felt  it 
was  on  man's  account,  and  not  because  of  his  own  weakness  or  unworthi- 
ness.  He  had  been  thinking  in  terms  of  sacrifice,  and  he  beheved  Christ 
had  been  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice  for  men.  His  death  meant  more  than 
the  animal  sacrifice  did  to  the  Jew;  God  not  only  accepted  it  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  what  man  should  have  rendered,  but  it  was  at  the  same  time 
a  vindication  of  the  righteousness  of  God.  Paul  had  thought  of_God 
in^  terms^  of  law,  and  he  never  got  entirely  away  from  that.  Law  and 
experience  were  combined  in  Paul's  thinking,  for  the  death  of  Christ 
was  not  only  a  propitiation  of  God  by  showing  his  wrath  against  sin, 
but  it  was  also  an  expression  of  his  love  for  sinners.  Paul's  legal  train- 
ing led  him  to  think  of  Christ's  death  as  a  ansom  price  to  redeem  man 
from  the  bondage  of  sin,  law  and  death;  while  his  experience  of  the 
heavenly  Christ,  in  connection  with  the  notion  of  the  suffering  servant 
of  Jehovah,  led  him  to  think  of  it  as  a  vicarious  sacrifice  for  men.  The 
feeling  towards  God,  which  came  as  a  result  of  his  Christian  experience, 
convinced  him  that  the  death  of  Christ  was  a  means  of  reconcihation 
between  God  and  men.  '  The  God  whom  he  had  known  under  the  law 
was  a  God  of  wrath  and  justice,  but  the  God  whom  he  had  come  to 
know  through  Jesus  Christ  was  a  God  of  love  and  compassion. 

It  is  not  probable  that  Paul  reached  his  conclusion  about  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  death  of  Christ  suddenly;  it  was  undoubtedly  the  devel- 
opment of  a  lifetime.  His  conception  became  richer  with  the  passing 
of  the  years,  for  each  new  experience  modified  his  theory.  Paul  took 
up  into  his  own  thinking  elements  from  Judaism,  the  thought  of  the 
Greek  world,  the  teaching  of  the  primitive  disciples,  his  own  personal 
experience,  and  the  experience  of  others,  as  he  had  observed  it,  and  the 
result  was  his  theory  of  the  death  of  Christ.  It  is  not  probable  that 
Paul  had  any  thought  about  the  sources  from  which  his  ideas  were 
derived;  he  accepted  what  seemed  to  him  to  be  the  truth,  and  this 
became  a  part  of  his  thinking.  Paul  was  certain  that  he  had  the  spirit 
of  God,  and  that  he  had  divine  guidance  in  reaching  his  conclusions; 
hence  he  had  no  doubt  about  the  correctness  of  his  convictions.  He  felt 
as  certain  about  the  conclusions  to  which  he  had  come  through  a  process 
of  reasoning,  by  taking  elements  from  different  sources  and  working 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  51 

them  into  a  theory,  as  he  did  about  convictions  which  he  believed  were 
the  result  of  revelation;  the  divine  spirit  had  guided  him  in  either  case. 

The  Pre-existent  Christ 
a.  Statement  of  Paul's  teaching. 

Paul  did  not  attempt  to  prove  the  pre-existence  of  Christ.  His 
references  to  it  are  all  incidental,  but  these  are  more  important  as 
indicating  his  behef  than  lengthy  arguments  would  be.  Instead  of 
attempting  to  prove  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  Paul  presupposed  it  as  a 
behef  which  was  familiar  to  his  readers.  Pre-existence  is  impHed  in 
the  statement,  "God  sent  forth  his  Son"  (Gal.  4:4;  Rom.  8:3).  This 
would  indicate  that  Paul  believed  Christ  had  existed  with  the  Father 
before  his  appearance  on  the  earth,  and  that  God  sent  him  from  that 
pre-existent  state  into  this  earthly  life.  Pre-existence  is  implied  in 
the  statement :  "  Though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor  " 
(II  Cor.  8:9).  This  would  indicate  that  Paul  was  convinced  that  Christ 
had  had  an  existence  of  wealth  and  honor  before  he  came  to  earth,  and 
that  his  life  here  was  a  giving  up  of  his  former  riches.  Pre-existence 
is  implied  in  the  statement  that  the  spiritual  rock  which  followed  the 
IsraeUtes  was  Christ  (I  Cor.  10:4).  Paul  evidently  believed  the  pre- 
existent  Christ  was  present  with  the  children  of  Israel,  and  helped  them 
in  their  wilderness  wanderings.  His  statement  in  I  Cor.  8:6  would 
indicate  that  he  beHeved  the  pre-existent  Christ  was  the  agent  in  creation. 

The  classical  passage  in  which  Paul  emphasized  the  pre-existent 
Christ  is  Phil.  2 :3-l  1,  This  has  been  a  much  discussed  passage.  Many 
writers  have  come  to  it  with  preconceived  ideas,  and  hence  they  have 
read  into  it  a  meaning  which  Paul  did  not  have  in  mind.  The  context 
shows  that  he  was  not  discussing  the  various  phases  of  Christ's  exis- 
tence, but  referred  to  him  as  an  illustration  of  humility  and  self-sacrifice. 
Scholars  have  differed  in  their  interpretation  of  h  tMp(pfi  0eov  (Phil.  2 :6)^^ 
Paul  was  not  discussing  Christ's  relation  to  the  Father  while  he  was 
in  the  pre-existent  state.  He  was  not  even  discussing  the  reahty  of  his 
pre  existence.  He  assumed  this,  and  made  it  the  basis  of  an  exhorta- 
tion to  the  Christians.  Paul  urged  the  Philippians  to  be  willing  to 
sacrifice  self  for  others  as  Christ  had  sacrificed  himself  in  behaK  of  hu- 
manity. He  said  although  Christ  was  in  the  form  of  God,  yet  he  was 
willing  to  give  up  his  divine  honor  and  glory,  and  live  upon  the  earth  as 
a  man,  and  while  living  as  a  man,  suffer  the  humiliation  upon  the  cross. 

"  For  a  brief  discussion  of  this  passage  and  its  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ,  see  S.  Nowell  Rostron,  The  Christology  of  St.  Paul,  1912,  pp.  114  ff. 


52  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WMTINGS 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Paul  believed  in  the  pre-existence  of  Christ, 
and  that  this  was  not  an  ideal  existence,  but  was  as  real  as  that  which 
he  later  had  on  the  earth. 
b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  the  pre-existent 

Christ. 
(a).  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

The  Jews  had  the  idea  that  every  person  or  thing  of  importance, 
like  the  temple  or  the  holy  city,  had  a  heavenly  prototype  before  it 
had  its  real  existence;  and  some  writers  have  made  this  the  basis  for 
the  development  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  pre-existent  Christ.  There 
seems  to  have  been  in  the  Jewish  thought  of  Paul's  day  a  more  striking 
resemblance  to  the  pre-existent  Christ  than  the  one  just  mentioned.  It 
is  almost  certain  that  in  later  Judaism  there  was  the  conception  of  a 
Messiah  who  existed  in  heaven  with  God,  and  was  waiting  the  time  of 
his  manifestation  on  the  earth.  The  most  striking  expressions  of  this 
conception,  which  have  been  preserved,  are  in  the  book  of  Enoch.  In 
Sim.  46:1,  2,  the  Son  of  Man  is  represented  as  one  who  is  with  God: 
"The  angel  showed  me  all  things  concerning  the  Son  of  Man,  who  he 
was,  and  whence  he  was,  and  why  he  went  in  with  the  Head  of  Days. " 
He  is  represented  in  Sim.  61 :7  as  having  been  hidden  in  heaven  before 
his  manifestation  on  the  earth:  "The  Son  of  Man  was  hidden  before 
him,  and  the  Most  High  preserved  him  in  the  presence  of  his  might,  and 
revealed  him  to  the  elect."  The  same  idea  is  emphasized  in  Sim.  48:2: 
"He  had  been  chosen  and  hidden  before  the  Lord  of  Spirits  before  the 
creation  of  the  world  and  forevermore.  "^^  It  is  difl&cult  to  state  just 
what  conception  of  the  Messiah  would  be  indicated  by  these  and  other 
similar  passages  which  might  be  cited,  but  it  seems  that  a  popular  phase 
of  Messianism  was  that  the  Messiah  would  come  from  a  heavenly 
pre-existence  where  he  was  being  kept  by  God  until  the  day  of  his 
manifestation.^ 

''The  date  of  the  Sunilitudes  of  Enoch  is  uncertain,  and  some  scholars  have 
regarded  these  statements  as  Christian  interpolations,  but  Emil  Schurer  {Geschichte 
Des  Jiidischen  Volkes,  III,  1907,  p.  280,  Eng.  trans.  Divis.,  II,  Vol.  Ill,  1891,  p.  68) 
regards  these  passages  as  purely  Jewish,  and  he  does  not  think  it  is  necessary  to  pre- 
suppose Christian  influence.  He  says:  "The  view  of  the  Messiah  here  set  forth  is 
fully  intelligible  on  purely  Jewish  premises,  and  does  not  need  for  its  explanation 
the  hypothesis  of  Christian  influence." 

^  For  a  further  discussion  of  the  Jewish  notion  of  a  pre-existent  Messiah,  see  W. 
Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Judentums  im  neutestamentlichen  Zeitalter,  1903,  pp.  253  f. 
Percy  Gardner  {The  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  pp.  184  f.)  says:  "It  has 
been  shown  by  recent  research  that  the  notion  of  an  exalted  spiritual  Messiah,  who  was 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  53 

While  it  seems  almost  certain  that  the  Jews  believed  in  a  pre-exis- 
tent  Messiah,  it  is  not  probable  that  they  thought  he  would  come  from 
his  heavenly  state  to  be  born  as  a  child;  on  the  contrary,  he  was  to 
come  as  the  mighty  one.  If  the  heavenly  pre-existence  of  the  Messiah 
was  a  part  of  Jewish  Messianism,  then  Paul  must  have  held  to  that 
before  his  conversion,  and  it  would  furnish  him  a  good  starting  point 
for  his  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ.  Before  Paul's  conversion 
to  Christianity  it  must  have  seemed  to  him  Uke  sacrilege  to  refer  to 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  The  Messiah  was  the  mighty  one,  who  was 
being  kept  in  heaven  until  God's  appointed  time,  and  then  he  was  to  be 
manifested  in  power  and  glory;  but  Jesus  had  come  as  a  child,  and  had 
lived  as  a  man,  and  had  died  in  disgrace.  But  when  Paul  was  converted 
to  Christianity,  he  transferred  to  Jesus  all  the  ideals  he  had  of  the  heav- 
enly being.  It  should  be  said,  however,  that  the  Christian  Messiah, 
whom  Paul  worshipped,  was  not  merely  the  Jewish  Messiah  under 
another  name;  there  were  striking  differences,  and  other  sources  besides 
the  Jewish  contributed  to  Paul's  thinking, 
(b)  The  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

There  were  many  similarities  between  the  Greek  thought  of  Paul's 
day  and  his  idea  of  the  pre-existent  Christ.  In  the  Hellenistic  thought 
of  Paul's  time  there  was  an  intermediary  between  God  and  his  world, 
which  was  designated  as  Wisdom  or  Logos.  The  problem  for  the  Greek 
was  to  make  it  possible  for  a  good  God  to  have  any  dealings  with  an 
evil  world,  and  this  was  accompHshed  through  the  intermediary.  It  is 
stated  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (10:17)  that  the  cloud  which  accom- 
panied the  Israehtes  in  the  wilderness  was  the  Divine  Wisdom.  Philo 
of  Alexandria  had  much  to  say  about  the  Logos  as  the  intermediary 
between  God  and  the  world.  He  held  that  the  Logos  is  "the  Image 
of  God"  (Prof.   19):  "The  divine  Logos  is  like  nothing  perceptible, 

to  be  no  mere  earthly  king  and  conqueror  but  a  great  angelic  being,  was  by  no  means 
unknown  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Jesus.  Such  a  supernatural 
Messiah  is  shadowed  forth  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  (17,  18),  and  in  the  book  of 
Enoch  (47).  To  such  thought  the  Messiah  was  pre-existent  in  heaven,  waiting  to  be 
revealed  to  men,  the  prince  of  angels."  W.  Wrede  (Patdus,  1907,  p.  87;  Eng.  trans. 
1908,  p.  152)  is  also  convinced  that  Jewish  apocalyptic  Uterature  makes  it  certain 
that  the  Jews  believed  in  a  Messiah,  who,  before  his  appearance,  lived  in  heaven  and 
was  more  exalted  than  the  angels  themselves.  Gerald  Friedlander  (Hellenism  and 
Christianity,  1912,  pp.  1  ff.)  is  just  as  certain  that  the  conception  of  a  Messiah,  who  was 
pre-existent  in  heaven,  was  utterly  foreign  to  Jewish  thought,  and  that  all  the  references 
in  Jewish  apocalyptic  Uterature  to  a  pre-existent  Messiah  are  Christian  interpolations. 


54  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

but  is  itself  an  Image  of  God. "  He  designated  the  Logos  as  the  Son 
of  God  (Agr.  Noe,  12):  "  God  regulates  the  nature  of  the  heavens,  etc., 
appointing  as  their  immediate  superintendent,  his  own  Logos,  his  first 
born  son. ''  Philo  thought  of  the  Logos,  which  he  designated  as  God's 
Image  and  First-born  Son,  as  being  eternal  (Conf.  Ling.  28):  "For  even 
if  we  are  not  yet  suitable  to  be  called  the  sons  of  God,  still  we  may- 
deserve  to  be  called  the  children  of  his  eternal  Image,  of  his  most  sacred 
Logos;  for  the  image  of  God  is  his  most  ancient  Logos. "  It  is  in  the 
relation  of  the  Logos  to  the  universe  and  to  mankind  that  the  teaching 
of  Philo  is  the  most  significant.  The  Logos  is  designated  as  the  arche- 
typal pattern  according  to  which  the  universe  was  made  (Mundi  Op. 
6):  "It  is  manifest  also,  that  the  archetypal  seal,  which  we  call  that 
world  which  is  perceptible  only  to  the  intellect,  must  itself  be  the  arche- 
typal model,  the  idea  of  ideas,  the  Logos  of  God."  Philo  regarded 
the  Logos  as  the  instrument  of  creation  (On  Cherub.  35):  "The  cause 
by  whom  the  world  was  made  is  God;  the  materials  are  the  four  elements 
of  which  it  is  composed;  the  instrument  is  the  Logos  of  God,  by  means 
of  which  it  was  made."  Philo  also  believed  the  Logos  is  the  power 
by  means  of  which  God  binds  the  universe  together,  and  controls  what 
he  has  made  (Prof.  20) :  "  It  is  the  bond  of  all  things,  and  holds  together 
and  binds  all  the  parts,  and  prevents  them  from  being  dissolved  and 
separated."  Philo  did  not  regard  the  Logos  as  an  independent  force 
but  as  a  medium  between  God  and  his  world  (Migrat.  Abr.  1):  "By 
means  of  the  Logos,  the  ruler  of  the  universe  takes  hold  of  it  as  a  rudder, 
and  governs  all  things. "  According  to  Philo's  thinking,  the  Logos  was 
the  archetype  for  man  as  well  as  for  the  universe  (Mundi  Op.  48): 
"For  God  does  not  seem  to  have  availed  himself  of  any  other  animal 
existing  in  creation  as  his  model  in  the  formation  of  man,  but  to  have 
been  guided  by  his  own  Logos  alone.  On  which  account  Moses  affirms 
that  this  man  was  an  image  and  imitation  of  God."  It  is  by  the  Logos 
that  men  are  guided  and  controlled  (Mundi  Op.  50):  "But  since  every 
city  in  which  law;  are  properly  established  has  a  regular  constitution, 
it  becomes  necessary  for  the  citizens  of  the  world  to  adopt  the  same 
constitution  as  that  which  prevailed  in  the  universal  world.  And  this 
constitution  is  the  right  Logos  of  nature,  which  in  more  appropriate 
language  is  denominated  law,  being  a  divine  arrangement  in  accordance 
with  which  everything  suitable  and  appropriate  is  assigned  to  every 
individual."  What  the  sun  is  to  the  natural  world,  the  Logos  is  to 
men.  Just  as  the  sun  gives  life  to  nature,  so  the  Logos  gives  life  and 
salvation  to  the  righteous;  but  it  also  brings  destruction  upon  the 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  55 

unrighteous  (Somn.  I.  15):  "When  he  speaks  of  the  sun,  he  means 
the  divine  Logos,  the  model  of  that  sun  which  moves  about  through  the 
heaven.  .  .  .  For  the  Logos  of  God,  when  it  reaches  to  our  earthly 
constitution,  assists  and  protects  those  who  are  akin  to  virtue;  so  that 
it  provides  them  a  complete  refuge  and  salvation,  but  upon  their  enemies 
it  sends  irremediable  overthrow  and  destruction."  Philo  thinks  the 
Logos  enables  men  to  understand  God  (Leg.  All.  Ill,  73):  "But  we 
must  be  content  if  we  are  able  to  understand  even  his  name,  that  is 
to  say,  his  Logos,  which  is  the  interpreter  of  his  will."  He  also  thinks 
the  Logos  is  the  mediator  between  God  and  men  (Quis  Rerum  Div. 
Her.  42):  "And  the  Father,  who  created  he  universe,  has  given  to  his 
angelic  and  most  ancient  Logos  a  pre-eminent  gift,  to  stand  on  the 
confines  of  both  and  separate  that  which  had  been  created  from  the 
creator.  And  this  same  Logos  is  continually  a  suppliant  to  the  immor- 
tal God  on  behalf  of  the  mortal  race,  which  is  exposed  to  affliction  and 
misery;  and  is  also  the  ambassador,  sent  by  the  ruler  of  all  to  the  sub- 
ject race." 

These  numerous  citations  from  Philo's  writing;  have  been  made 
because  a  survey  of  the  philosophy  to  which  Philo  gave  expression  is 
indispensable  to  an  understanding  of  the  thought  of  the  world  in  which 
Paul  lived.  A  summary  of  these  passages  and  others  which  might  have 
been  cited  will  enable  us  to  form  a  fairly  accurate  conception  of  what 
the  Logos  meant  to  Philo.  In  its  relation  to  God,  it  is  called  the  Image 
of  God,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Shadow  of  God,  the  Reason  of  God,  etc. 
In  its  relation  to  the  Powers,  it  is  at  the  head,  and  stand  next  to  God. 
In  its  relation  to  the  universe,  it  is  designated  as  the  archetype,  the 
instrument  of  creation,  and  the  universal  law  regulating  and  controll- 
ing all  things.  In  its  relation  to  man,  it  is  des  gnated  as  his  arche- 
type; as  a  moral  law  controlling  his  relations  with  his  fellowmen;  as 
the  interpreter  of  God's  will  for  him;  and  as  his  mediator  before  God. 
It  is  difficult  to  say  to  what  extent  Philo  ascribed  distinct  personality 
to  the  Logos,  but  his  statements  were  of  such  a  character  that  it  would 
be  easy  for  others  to  ascribe  personality,  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Philo  did  not  create  this  philosophy;  he  was  merely  giving  expression 
to  the  thought  of  his  age.  Paul  may  never  have  read  any  of  Philo's 
writings,  but  the  idea  was  current  in  the  Greek  world  that  Wisdom,  or 
Logos,  was  God's  means  of  manifesting  himself  to  men,  and  that  concep- 
tion was  beginning  to  find  entrance  into  the  Jewish  world,  as  is 
indicated  by  the  "  memra ' '  of  the  Targums.  This  thought  of  an  interme- 
diary between  God  and  his  world  must  have  been  current  in  Tarsus,  and 


56  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Paul  must  have  been  familiar  with  it.  It  must  have  influenced  his 
thinking  as  a  Jew,  and  when  the  great  upheaval  came  in  his  own  soul, 
and  he  was  compelled  to  reshape  his  conception  of  the  Messiah,  these 
Greek  ideas  were  given  a  large  place. 

(c)  Primitive  Christian  tradition. 

It  is  impossible  to  state  just  what  the  primitive  Christian  tradition 
which  must  have  been  familiar  to  Paul,  had  to  say  about  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ.  The  doctrine  of  pre-existence  is  very  evident  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  but  it  is  a  question  whether  this  represents  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  or  whether  it  is  due  to  a  later  development  in  the  thought  of 
the  church  about  Christ.  The  Fourth  Gospel  is  an  interpretation  of 
the  life  and  teachings  of  Jesus,  and  there  is  a  strong  probabihty  that 
the  statements  about  pre-existence  which  are  made  in  the  body  of  the 
book  are  interpretative,  and  are  used  to  carry  out  the  purpose  as  it  is 
stated  in  the  Prologue.  The  doctrine  of  pre-existence  is  not  definite- 
ly stated  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  but  there  are  some  passages  which 
are  more  naturally  explained  by  assuming  that  they  imply  pre-existence. 
The  Synoptic  Gospels,  however,  were  not  written  until  after  Paul's  let- 
ters had  been  penned,  and  there  had  been  much  development  in  Chris- 
tology  before  that  time.  Although  the  interpretative  element  is  not 
so  prominent  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  as  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  yet  it 
figures  in  each  of  these  documents,  and  it  may  have  some  bearing  on  the 
statements  which  seem  to  imply  pre-existence.  In  the  sermons  that 
are  recorded  in  the  first  part  of  Acts,  there  is  nothing  said  about  pre- 
existence.  It  is  impossible  to  absolutely  reproduce  the  thought  of  the 
church  into  which  Paul  entered.  We  do  not  know  just  what  was  the 
Christology  of  that  primitive  church,  or  what  it  taught  about  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ,  as  we  have  no  literature  which  came  out  of  that 
period.  It  seems  probable,  however,  that  if  there  was  any  reference  to 
pre-existence  in  the  early  Christian  tradition,  it  was  not  given  much 
prominence.  The  tradition  which  Paul  received  from  the  church  into 
which  he  entered  would  not  be  sufficient  in  itself  to  explain  his  concep- 
tion of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ.^ 

(d)  His  own  personal  experience. 

It  was  Paul's  personal  experience  which  led  him  to  identify  the 
Jewish  conception  of  a  pre-existent  Messiah,  and  the  Greek  idea  of  the 

^  J.  W.  Bailey  (Elements  of  Paul's  Christology,  1905,  p.  55)  concludes  his  discus- 
sion of  the  sources  which  contributed  to  Paul's  thought  about  pre-existence  by  say- 
ing: "Paul's  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  was  not  transmitted  to  him  as  a 
tradition  of  the  church,  and  accepted  on  the  basis  of  such  authority." 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  57 

intermediary  between  God  and  his  world,  with  the  Christ  whom  the 
Christians  were  worshipping.  He  interpreted  the  experience  which  led 
him  to  make  this  identification  as  a  revelation  of  Christ  in  him.  He  felt 
that  this  Christ  whom  he  had  begun  to  know  was  too  great  to  have  had 
his  beginning  with  earth;  he  was  the  heavenly  being,  and  his  earthly 
career  was  but  a  humiliation  from  his  heavenly  existence.  Paul  was 
led  to  know  Christ  in  a  manner  that  was  just  the  opposite  of  that  in 
which  the  primitive  disciples  came  to  know  him.  They  were  led  gradu- 
ally to  the  conviction  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiah  of  God. 
Paul  came  to  believe  in  the  heavenly  Christ  first  and  although  he  identi- 
fied him  with  the  historical  Jeuses,  it  was  natural  for  him  to  continue 
to  think  of  him  in  heavenly  terms. 

While  Paul's  Jewish  inheritance  and  his  Greek  environment,  along 
with  the  teaching  of  the  early  Christians,  helped  to  determine  the 
Christ  in  whom  he  came  to  believe,  yet  it  was  his  own  personal  experience 
which  led  him  to  bring  together  these  hitherto  discordant  elements. 
If  Paul  had  not  passed  through  some  great  experience,  he  would  have 
continued  to  regard  Jesus  as  an  impostor,  and  to  believe  in  a  Jewish 
Messiah  who  was  yet  to  come.  That  great  experience,  which  turned 
him  from  a  persecutor  into  one  of  the  persecuted,  led  him  to  accept  the 
Christ  of  the  Christ'ans,  and  to  ascribe  to  him  the  highest  ideals  of  the 
Jewish  Messiah.  This  new  adjustment  would  lead  him  to  adopt  ideas 
of  the  Greeks  which  had  hitherto  unconsciously  influenced  him.  It  is 
not  probable  that  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  pre-existent  Christ  was  defi- 
nitely formed  at  the  time  of  his  conversion;  it  was  the  development 
of  a  lifetime,  and  it  was  his  own  personal  experience  which  guided  him 
in  I  he  development.  As  he  gave  Christ  a  larger  place  in  his  thinking 
and  his  life,  he  placed  more  stress  on  his  heavenly  qualities,  and  espe- 
cially on  his  pre-existence. 

The  Christ  of  the  Future  Age 
a.  Statement  of  Paul's  teaching. 

The  Christ  of  the  future  age  occupied  a  prominent  place  in  Paul's 
Christology.  Paul  believed  the  present  order  was  to  pass  away,  and  a 
new  age  was  to  be  inaugurated.  He  believed  Christ  was  to  have  a  promi- 
nent part  in  the  inauguration  of  this  new  age.  The  common  Jewish 
designation  for  the  end  of  the  present  order,  and  the  inauguration  of  the 
new  age,  was  the  "Day  of  the  Lord,"  but  in  Paul's  thinking,  Christ 
was  to  have  such  a  prominent  part  that  he  designated  the  event  as  the 
''Day  of  Christ"  (Phil.  1:6,  10;  2:16;  I  Cor.  1:8    II  Cor.  1:14).     Paul 


58  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

believed  that  at  the  end  of  this  age  Christ  will  come  in  person  (I  Thess. 
2 :19).  He  will  be  accompanied  by  the  saints  (I  Thess.  3:13),  and  he  will 
come  with  a  shout  of  victory  (I  Thess.  4:16).  He  taught  that  when 
Christ  comes,  the  righteous  dead  will  be  raised,  and  along  with  the 
righteous  who  are  still  living  at  the  time  of  his  coming,  they  will  be 
caught  up  to  meet  him  in  the  air  to  be  with  him  forever.  Paul  beheved 
that  Christ  would  come  at  an  unexpected  moment,  and  there  are  many 
statements  in  his  writings  which  would  indicateJiiaJ.Jie_belieyed_Ji^ 
comjn^  was  to  be  soon  (Rom.  13:11,  12;  I  Thess.  4:15,  17;  I  Cor.  1:7,  8). 
He  believed  thafafter  Christ's  coming  there  was  to  be  a  judgment,  and 
that  Christ  was  to  have  such  a  pre-eminent  part  that  the  place  of  judg- 
ment could  be  designated  as  the  "judgment  seat  of  Christ"  (II  Cor. 
5:10).  In  this  judgment  none  will  escape,  for  all  must  be  made  mani- 
fest. Even  the  secrets  of  men  will  be  revealed  when  the  Lord  comes, 
for  he  will  "bring  to  light  the  hidden  things  of  darkness,  and  make  mani- 
fest the  counsels  of  the  hearts. " 

Although  Paul  believed  Christ  was  to  play  an  important  part  in  the 
inauguration  of  the  new  age,  and  in  the  judgment  which  was  to  be  a  part 
of  this  great  event,  yet  he  beheved  he  was  to  be  subordinate  to  God, 
and  would  act  as  his  representative.  Paul  believed  that  when  Christ 
shall  have  put  under  his  feet  the  last  enemy,  which  is  death,  then  "  he 
shall  dehver  up  the  kingdom  to  God"  that  he  may  be  all  in  all  (I  Cor. 
15:24-28). 
b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  thought  about  the  Christ  of 

the  future  age. 
(a)  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

According  to  the  thought  of  current  Judaism,  God  was  to  send  his 
Messiah  at  the  end  of  the  age  to  inaugurate  the  Messianic  kingdom.     He 
would  be  so  great  that  he  would  slay  all  sinners  by  "the  word  of  his 
mouth  "  (Enoch  62 :2) .     The  kings  and  the  mighty  ones  would  behold  him 
sitting  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  and  they  would  know  that  "righteous- 
ness is  judged  before  him"  (Enoch  62:3).    The  Messiah  was  to  appear, 
and  then  he  was  to  be  seated  on  the  throne  of  his  glory  (Enoch  69 :29) : 
"For  that  Son  of  Man  has  appeared, 
And  has  seated  himself  on  the  throne  of  his  glory. 
And  all  evil  shall  pass  away  before  his  face. 
And  the  word  of  that  Son  of  Man  shall  go  forth 
And  be  strong  before  the  Lord  of  Spirits. " 
The  Jews  believed  that  the  Messiah  was  being  concealed  by  God  until 
the  day  of  his  manifestation,  and  that  then  he  was  to  come  suddenly 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  59 

from  the  place  of  his  concealment.  The  dead  were  to  be  raised,  and 
the  wicked  were  to  be  punished.  The  righteous  dead  who  had  been 
raised,  together  with  the  righteous  Jews  who  were  living,  were  to  con- 
stitute   the    Messianic    kingdom. ^^ 

According  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels  the  conception  of  the  Messiah 
which  John  the  Baptist  had  in  mind  was  that  of  a  judge  (Matt.  3:12): 
"Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  will  thoroughly  cleanse  his  threshing- 
jfloor;  and  he  will  gather  his  wheat  into  his  garner,  but  the  chaff  he  will 
burn  with  unquenchable  fire. "  John  expected  Jesus  to  be  the  mighty 
judge,  and  live  apart  from  men,  and  because  he  was  compassionate  and 
meek  and  ate  with  men,  doubts  sprang  up  in  the  mind  of  the  forerunner, 
and  he  sent  messengers  to  inquire  of  the  Master  whether  he  was  the 
Messiah,  or  whether  they  should  look  for  another.  The  disciples  failed 
to  understand  Jesus,  because  they  were  expecting  a  mighty  judge  who 
would  condemn  and  destroy  the  enemies  of  God.  There  were  many 
variations  in  Jewish  Messianism,  but  all  were  agreed  that  the  Messiah 
was  the  mighty  one  who  would  judge  the  nations.  Paul  inherited  these 
eschatological  conceptions  of  the  Jews,  and  they  formed  the  basis  for 
the  development  of  his  Christian  eschatology. 
(b)  The  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered. 

The  personal  disciples  of  Jesus  expected  him  to  set  up  a  kingdom  in 
which  he  would  take  the  place  of  judge.  Instead  of  carrying  out  their 
ideals,  he  died  upon  a  cross,  and  consequently  they  were  disappointed 
and  heartbroken.  Their  conviction  that  Christ  was  alive  changed  the 
whole  situation  for  them.  They  became  convinced  that  Christ  was 
coming  again,  and  that  he  would  perform  at  his  second  coming  what 
they  had  mistakenly  supposed  he  would  do  at  his  first  coming.  Jesus 
had  undoubtedly  made  some  statements  relating  to  a  future  coming 
and  to  his  work  as  a  judge,  and  these  statements  had  been  passed  on  to 
Paul,  and  he  accepted  them  without  question.  In  writing  to  the  Thes- 
salonians  about  the  condition  of  the  Christians  who  had  died,  he  said 
those  who  are  alive  at  the  coming  of  the  Lord  will  have  no  advantage 
over  those  who  are  dead,  and  he  said  he  was  making  this  statement  by 
**the  word  of  the  Lord"  (I  Thess.  4:15).  He  evidently  referred  to  some 
statement  which  he  had  received  as  having  come  from  Jesus,  and  he 

'« For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  eschatology  of  later  Judaism,  see  Emil  Schurer, 
The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  Divis.  II,  Vol.  II,  pp.  154  ff.;  R.  H. 
Charles,  Ar.  "Eschatology,"  Encyc.  Bib.  Vol.  II,  pp.  1335  ff.;  S.  D.  F.  Salmon,  Art. 
"Eschatology,"  H.  H.  B.,  Vol.  I,  pp.  734  ff.;  or  Shailer  Mathews,  The  Messianic 
Hope  in  the  New  Testament,  1905,  pp.  21  ff. 


60  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

believed  this  covered  the  point  raised  by  the  Thessalonians,  and  he  felt 
that  there  was  no  need  of  further  argument,  for  the  statement  of  Jesus 
settled  the  question.  Paul  undoubtedly  received  from  the  primitive 
Christians  some  teaching  concerning  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  and 
this  influenced  him  in  the  development  of  his  thought  of  the  future 
age.  But  inasmuch  as  the  thought  of  the  primitive  Christians  about  the 
second  coming  of  Christ  and  the  part  he  is  to  perform  in  the  bringing 
in  of  the  Messianic  era  was  derived  from  Judaism,  it  is  impossible  to 
distinguish  between  what  Paul  obtained  from  the  primitive  Christians 
and  what  he  derived  from  Judaism, 
(c)  His  own  personal  experience. 

Judaism  alone  would  not  explain  Paul's  notion  of  the  Christ  of  the 
future  age.  Unless  he  had  passed  through  some  wonderful  experience 
he  would  not  have  been  convinced  that  the  one,  whom  he  had  supposed 
was  an  impostor,  was  in  reality  the  mighty  one  who  is  to  be  the  judge  of 
all  the  earth.  In  his  thinking,  he  not  only  went  back  from  the  heavenly 
Christ,  whom  he  had  come  to  know,  to  the  pre-existent  Christ,  but  he 
also  went  forward  to  the  Christ,  as  he  is  yet  to  be.  The  Christ  whom 
he  worshipped  was  too  great  to  have  had  his  beginning  with  earth,  and 
he  was  also  too  great  to  have  his  influence  end  with  this  present  age. 
When  Paul  came  to  know  the  Christ  of  God,  and  had  experienced  his 
power  in  his  own  Ufe,  he  realized  that  there  could  be  none  greater  than 
he,  and  he  transferred  to  him  all  the  glory  which  the  Jewish  apocalyp- 
tists  had  ascribed  to  their  Messiah.  Paul  assigned  to  the  Christ  of  the 
future  age  the  highest  possible  place,  with  but  one  exception,  and  his 
Jewish  training  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  safeguard  the  sovereignty 
of  God.  Christian  experience  led  Paul  to  exalt  Christ  to  the  highest 
possible  position,  but  his  Jewish  inheritance  required  him  to  keep  God 
in  the  supreme  place;  hence  Christ  becomes  God's  representative  to 
carry  out  his  plans,  and  when  he  shall  have  done  this,  he  will  deliver  the 
kingdom  up  to  God  that  he  may  be  all  in  all. 

The  New  Life 
Statement  of  Fatd's  Teaching 
Paul's  Christian  teaching  reached  its  consummation  in  the  new  life 
of  the  believer,  as  all  his  preaching  and  writing  were  for  the  purpose 
of  leading  men  into  the  new  Hfe.  In  making  a  study  of  Paul's  concep- 
tion of  the  new  life  in  Christ,  it  is  necessary  to  begin  with  his  doctrine 
of  justification;  but  inasmuch  as  the  relation  of  the  law  4o4ustifijcation 
will'^Beliiscussed  in  another  connection,  that  phase  of  the  subject  will 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  61 

be  passed  over  for  the  present.  In  Galatians  and  Romans  much  space 
is  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  justification,  and  in  the 
latter  epistle  much  emphasis  is  placed  upon  the  new  life  of  those  who 
are  justified.  Paul  held  that  a  man  is  justified  though  faith  in  Christ, 
and  he  believed  faith  is  such  a  vital  bond  that  it  unites  the  believer 
to  him  who  is  the  source  of  the  new  life.  In  PauPs  thought,  this  union 
is  so^ital  that  the  bohovcr  becomes  tmerwith  Christ.  Christ's  death 
becomes  the  believer's  death,  and  his  resurrection  becomes  the  believer's 
resurrection,  and  because  of  this,  the  power  of  sin  is  conquered,  and  the 
new  life  is  sustained.  When  the  individual  is  thus  united  to  Christ,  j 
he  dies  to  sin.  Baptism  symbolizes  this  union  with  Christ,  and  the  ( 
consequent  death  to  sin  and  resurrection  to  the  new  life.  In  the  act 
of  baptism  the  individual  dies  with  Christ,  and  becomes  united  with  him 
in  his  resurrection  (Rom.  6:4,  5).  He  also  dies  to  his  old  self,  and  is 
raised  a  new  man.  This  change  is  so  decisive  that  the  Christian  is 
"dead  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  in  Jesus  Christ"  (Rom.  6:11). 

Paul  was  very  emphatic  in  his  statements  about  the  blessings  and 
privileges  of  the  new  life.  In  Rom.  5:1-11  Paul  discussed  the  blessed- 
ness of  the  one  who  is  living  the  new  life.  He  said  the  one  who  is  jus- 
tified by  faith  has  peace  with  God.  Through  this  faith  he  has  access 
into  divine  grace,  and  he  rejoices  in  the  ''hope  of  the  glory  of  God." 
The  one  who  has  entered  into  the  new  life  rejoices  even  in  his  tribula- 
tions, because  of  the  love  of  God  which  has  been  shed  abroad  in  his 
heart  through  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Paul  held  that  the  one  who  is  united  to  Christ  by  faith  is  freed  from 
sin  (Rom;^^6jl^23).  He  argued  that  the^eliever  IT^ot  only  united 
to  Christ  in  his  death,  but  also  in  his  resurrection;  that  being  true,  the 
crucifixion  of  Christ  becomes  the  crucifixion  of  the  old  life  of  the  believer,  I 
and  the  resurrection  of  Christ  becomes  the  resurrection  to  a  new  life  of 
the  one  who  has  become  united  to  Christ  by  faith.  This  crucifixion 
means  death  to  sin,  and  this  resurrection  means  the  new  life  in  Christ. 
The  one  who  is  united  to  Christ  by  faith  has  the  impelling  force  of  Christ 
within,  and  this  gives  him  victory.  Because  of  ihis  union  with  Christ, 
Paul  urged  the  Christians  to  holy  living.  Inasmuch  as  the  Christian 
is  united  to  Christ,  he  murt  not  let  sin  reign  in  his  body.  While  he  was 
the  servant  of  sin,  he  presented  his  members  to  sin  to  be  used  as  weap- 
ons to  fight  the  battles  of  unrighteousness;  but  now,  being  the  servant 
of  Christ,  he  mu."t  present  his  members  unto  God  to  be  used  8s  weapons 
to  fight  his  battles. 


■     >S 

,* 

'■  r- 

* 

»Kx 

f  y,  ;■ 

^  I  r 

■■\ 

o  ^ 

^>r 

62  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Tr^nm  7:1-?5  Paul  discusscd  the  relation  to  law  of  the  one  who  is 
living  the  new  life,  and  his  conclusion  was,  that  by  virtue  of  his  union 
with  Christ,  the  believer  is  freed  from  law;  hence  he  may  "serve  in 
newness  of  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter."  The  one 
who  is  living  under  law  finds  it  difficult  to  do  right  because  he  is  in 
bondage  to  sin,  and  the  law  is  not  able  to  give  him  victory.  The  one 
who  is  living  the  life  of  faith  finds  victory,  because  Christ  to  whom 
he  is  united  makes  him  free. 

/In  Rom.  8:1  ff.  Paul  discussed  the  relation  to  death  of  the  one  who 
has  entered  into  the  new  life,  and  his  conclusion  was  that  he  is  free 
from  the  law  of  death.  If  Christ  dwellslrTarman,  his  spirit  is  life  itself 
and  death  cannot  touch  it.  The  believer  has  been  made  victor  over 
death  because  of  the  assurance  which  he  has  of  the  resurrection.  Behef 
in  the  mere  existence  of  the  spirit  would  not  have  satisfied  Paul,  for  he 
felt  that  the  spirit  must  be  clothed  with  a  body.  Paul  declared,  that 
if  a  man  have  the  spirit  of  God,  he  need  have  no  fear  of  death:  "But 
if  the  spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwelleth  in  you, 
he  that  raised  up  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  give  life  also  to  your 
mortal  bodies  through  his  spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you." 

Paul  believed  that  the  one  who  is  united  to  Christ  by  faith  has  the 
divine  Spirit  dwelling  within.  He  did  not  regard  this  as  a  figurative 
I  expression,  but  it  was  for  him  a  real  entity.  Paul  declared  that  if  any 
man  does  not  have  this  Spirit  within,  he  does  not  belong  to  Christ;  and 
he  further  declared  that  as  many  as  follow  the  leading  of  this  Spirit, 
are  sons  of  God  (Rom.  8:9,  14).  He  made  a  sharp  distinction  between 
the  natural  man  and  the  spiritual  man.  The  natural  man  is  the  one 
who  does  not  have  the  Spirit  within,  and  he  lives  according  to  the  flesh. 
The  spiritual  man  is  the  one  who  has  the  Spirit  within,  and  this  over- 
comes the  flesh  and  gives  life  to  his  own  spirit.  Paul  did  not  definitely 
distinguish  between  the  Spirit,  and  the  indwelling  Christ,  and  the  Spirit 
of  God  (See  I  Cor.  15:45;  II  Cor.  3:17),  but  this  power  within  was  some- 
thing that  was  very  real  to  him.  He  felt  that  this  Spirit  within  not 
only  gives  one  victory  over  sin,  but  it  also  assures  him  of  sonship,  and 
aids  and  comforts  him  in  his  life,  and  even  enables  him  to  pray  as  he 
ought. 

In  addition  to  his  argument,  based  on  the  believer's  union  with 
Christ,  Paul  made  use  of  rewards  and  retributions  as  motives  to  holy 
living  (Rom.  6:23).  He  argued  that  man  should  seek  to  be  free  from 
sin,  because  its  wages  are  death;  and  he  should  seek  to  be  in  the  right 
relation  to  Christ,  because  that  means  eternal  life.     He  warned  the 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  63 

Corinthians  of  the  dangers  of  disobedience  by  citing  the  example  of  the 
Israelites  (I  Cor.  10:1-13).  Paul  sometimes  pictured  the  new  life  in 
eschatological  terms.  The  glorious  life  is  in  the  future,  and  this  present 
Ufe  is  a  waiting  for  that.  The  Christian's  citizenship  is  in  heaven,  and 
he  is  waiting  for  the  Lord  Jesus  to  come  from  thence,  and  change  this 
body  and  make  it  conform  to  Christ's  glorious  body  (Phil.  3:20,  21). 
The  future  rewards  and  punishments  are  certain.  The  one  who  sows 
to  the  flesh  shall  reap  corruption,  and  the  one  who  sows  to  the  Spirit 
shall  reap  eternal  life  (Gal.  6:7,  8).  Paul's  eschatological  ideas  helped 
to  determine  his  conception  of  the  new  life,  and  he  sometimes  spoke  of 
this  life  as  a  waiting  for  Christ,  who  is  to  come  to  receive  us. 

As  an  incentive  to  the  new  life,  Paul  held  Christ  up  before  the  Chris- 
tians as  an  example  for  their  imitation.  Christ  is  the  Master,  and 
when  one  surrenders  his  life  to  him  he  should  seek  to  become  like  him. 
In  urging  the  Romans  to  help  the  weak  instead  of  seeking  to  please 
themselves,  he  cited  the  example  of  Christ,  who  pleased  not  himself 
but  was  willing  to  bear  the  reproaches  that  belonged  to  others  (Rom. 
15:1  ff.).  In  urging  the  Philippians  to  humility,  he  pointed  them  to 
the  example  of  Christ.  He  did  not  refer  to  any  particular  incident 
connected  with  his  earthly  life,  but  to  his  earthly  life  as  a  whole:  though 
existing  in  the  form  of  God,  he  emptied  himself  and  lived  a  life  of  humil- 
ity on  the  earth  (Phil  2:5-11). 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Conception  of  the  New  Life 

a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

Paul's  Jewish  training  made  both  a  negative  and  a  positive  con- 
tribution to  his  conception  of  the  new  life  in  Christ.     Because  of  his 
I  Jewish  training,  it  was  natural  for  him  to  think  of  the  religious  life  as 
V  ethical  in  its  demands,  and  because  the  law  did  not  give  him  power 
to  live  up  to  its  demands,  he  was  prepared  to  accept  something  else, 
and  to  glorify  it  if  it  should  give  him  victory.     Paul's  Jewish  escha- 
tology  led  him  to  interpret  the  Christian  life  in  terms  of  the  future. 
The  Jews  believed  their  sufferings  were  the  result  of  their  disobedience, 
and  they  furth^Jbeliei^dthaT  if  ^Re^Tiation-would  keep  theja^  the 
Messianic  era  would  be  ushered  in^     Some  of  tEe^  Pharisees  declared 
that  if  the  nation  would  keep  the  law  for  one  day  the  Messiah  would 
come.     It  was  in  accordance  with  that  Jewish  conviction,  that  John 
j    the  Baptist  preached  repentance  as  a  preparation  for  the  coming  of 
the  kingdom.     Participation  in  the  Messianic  kingdom  was  a  great 
incentive  to  the  Jew  to  right  living.     It  was  natural  that  Paul's  Chris- 


64  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

tian  thinking  should  be  colored  by  his  Jewish  training,  and  that  he  should 
sometimes  interpret  the  Christian  life  from  the  eschatological  point 
of  view.  It  was  natural  that  he  should  think  Christians  are  not  citi- 
zens of  earth,  but  they  have  their  citizenship  in  heaven,  and  this  life 
is  to  be  lived  in  preparation  for  that. 

Paul  evidently  believed  the  Scriptures  were  written  to  help  Chris- 
tians to  live  the  new  life.  He  argued  that  the  law  could  not  justify 
a  man,  and  that  one  who  has  entered  the  new  life  has  been  freed  from 
the  law,  and  he  included  the  whole  Old  Testament  system  under  the  term 
"law."  But  while  Paul  did  not  find  in  the  Old  Testament  system  that 
which  would  produce  the  new  life,  he  did  make  use  of  it  in  urging  men 
to  right  living.  In  warning  the  Corinthians  against  the  dangers  of 
disobedience,  he  cited  the  example  of  the  Israelites  (I  Cor.  10:1-13). 
After  calling  attention  to  the  punishment  which  God  had  inflicted  on 
the  IsraeHtes  because  of  their  disobedince,  he  said:  "Now  these  things 
happened  unto  them  by  way  of  example;  and  they  were  written  for  our 
admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  ages  are  come."  This  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  Paul  beheved  everything  in  the  old  order  was  for 
the  sake  of  those  who  are  living  in  the  new.  When  God  punished  the 
IsraeHtes  because  they  committed  fornication  and  practiced  idolatry 
and  murmured  against  him,  he  was  thinking  not  merely  of  their  good,  but 
he  was  providing  examples  for  those  who  should  live  at  the  end  of  the 
ages, 
b.    The  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

There  are  many  striking  similarities  between  Paul's  conception 
of  the  new  life  and  the  ideas  of  the  mystery-cults.  Paul's  notion  of 
the  Christian's  union  with  Christ,  and  his  having  the  divine  Spirit 
within,  has  its  counterpart  in  the  mystery-religions.  In  a  prayer  to 
Hermes,  which  is  found  in  a  papyrus  which  is  now  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum, are  the  words:  ^'av  yap  kyd)  Kal  kyci)  crv."  The  same  formula, 
which  identifies  the  individual  with  the  deity,  is  found  in  a  Leyden  papy- 
rus. One  of  the  most  striking  differences  between  the  national  religions 
and  the  mystery-cults  was  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  individual 
to  the  deity.  In  the  religions  that  were  national  in  character,  the  indi- 
vidual attached  himself  to  the  national  group,  in  order  that  he  might 
claim  the  help  and  protection  of  the  god;  but  in  the  mystery-religions 
the  individual  sought  to  attach  himself  directly  to  the  deity.  It  was 
beheved  that  this  union  with  the  deity  could  be  brought  about  through 
certain  initiatory  rites,  which  usually  pictured  the  deity's  conquest  of 
death.    The  nature  and  significance  of  these  rites  were  expounded  by 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  65 

the  priest,  and  everything  that  was  done  was  intended  to  impress  the 
initiate  with  the  reahty  of  his  union  with  the  deity  into  whose  service 
he  was  entering.  The  initiate  into  the  mystery-cult  beheved  he  had 
been  born  again,  and  that  he  was  a  new  man.  He  beheved  the  deity 
dwelt  within  him  and  controlled  his  actions.^'  The  one  thing  which 
supremely  concerned  the  initiate  into  the  mystery-cult  was  victory 
over  death,  and  he  believed  union  with  the  deity,  who  had  conquered 
death,  would  assure  him  this  victory. 

Judaism  was  a  national  rehgion,  and  it  emphasized  the  importance 
of  the  individual  keeping  in  touch  with  the  national  group,  by  obeying 
their  laws,  and  keeping  their  ceremonies,  in  order  to  win  the  approval 
of  Jehovah.  The  Jew  might  think  that  Jehovah  helped  by  his  Spirit, 
but  he  did  not  think  of  being  united  to  Jehovah,  or  of  having  Jehovah 
dwell  within  him.  These  mystic  ideas  were  foreign  to  his  thinking. 
These  ideas  were,  however,  prominent  in  the  mystery-cults,  and  as  these 
religions  had  permeated  the  Mediterranean  world  before  the  time  of 
Paul,  he  must  have  come  in  touch  with  them.  Inasmuch  as  Paul's 
conception  of  victory  over  sin  and  death  through  union  with  Christ 
had  its  counterpart  in  the  mystery-cults,  and  was  not  found  in  Judaism, 
it  is  safe  to  assume  that  he  was  influenced  by  these  religions.  His  idea 
of  the  religious  life  was  perhaps  modified  somewhat  by  Greek  thought 
before  his  conversion,  and  this  may  have  been  one  of  the  influences  which 
helped  to  make  him  dissatisfied  with  Judaism;  but  he  was  constantly 
under  the  influence  of  Greek  thought  during  his  missionary  activities, 
and  his  conception  of  the  new  life  was  developed  in  this  environment. 
Paul's  Jewish  inheritance  and  his  Greek  environment  were  important 
factors  in  the  development  of  his  thought  about  the  new  life,  but  these 
alone  are  not  sufficient  to  explain  his  conception, 
c.  His  own  personal  experience. 

While  Paul's  Jewish  training  and  his  contact  with  the  Greek  world 
furnished  the  basis  for  his  Christian  experience,  there  was  something 
which  these  would  not  explain.     The  experience  which  resulted  from  the 

^^  A  quotation  from  an  article  by  Shirley  Jackson  Case  in  the  Biblical  World, 
Jan.  1914,  on  "Christianity  and  the  Mystery-Religions"  brings  out  in  a  very  strik- 
ing manner  the  idea  of  the  individual's  union  with  the  deity:  "The  one  to  be  initiated 
had  previously  observed  stated  rites  of  purification,  and  after  initiation  he  took  part 
in  further  ritualistic  ceremonies  such  as  eating  the  sacred  meal,  passing  the  night  in 
the  temple  bedchamber,  or  other  acts  which  were  thought  to  typify  or  secure  union 
with  the  god.  Thus  the  worshipper  experienced  a  new  birth.  He  was  a  god-man, 
for  the  deity  dwelt  in  him  and  controlled  his  life." 


66  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

surrender  of  his  own  personality  to  Christ  was  an  important  factor,  and 
to  neglect  this  is  to  misinterpret  Paul.  In  his  discussion  of  the  blessed- 
ness of  the  one  who  is  united  to  Christ  by  faith,  he  was  undoubtedly 
thinking  of  his  own  experience.  He  knew  that  such  a  one  has  peace 
with  God,  for  he  had  experienced  this  peace.  He  knew  that  the  man 
who  is  united  to  Christ  by  faith  could  rejoice  even  in  tribulations,  for 
he  had  passed  through  tribulations,  and  he  had  counted  them  all  joy. 
His  statement  that  the  beUver  is  dead  to  sin  was  no  mere  theory  with 
him;  it  was  a  conviction  that  was  the  result  of  the  new  life  he  had  been 
living.  Paul  referred  to  himself  as  one  who  had  died  and  had  begun 
to  live  again,  and  the  explanation  of  this  new  life  was  the  fact  that 
Christ  had  begun  to  live  in  him  (Gal.  2:20).  When  Paul  looked  back 
over  his  life,  he  realized  that  he  had  experienced  a  wonderful  change. 
Old  things  had  passed  away,  and  all  things  had  become  new  (II  Cor. 
5:17).  He  was  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  and  in  his  zeal  for  the  law, 
he  was  a  Pharisee.  He  was  a  persecutor  of  the  church.  He  had  once 
reckoned  these  things  as  gain,  but  he  now  counted  them  as  loss,  for 
Christ  had  changed  his  attitude  towards  life.  Paul  knew  from  his  own 
experience  that  Christ  is  able  to  dominate  and  control  one's  life. 

The  indwelling  Christ  was  the  inspiration  of  the  new  life  which 
Paul  was  living,  and  he  assumed  that  the  new  life  which  he  had  expe- 
rienced was  possible  for  all.  He  assumed  that  the  power  which  had 
transformed  him  would  transform  others,  and  that  this  transformation 
could  come  in  no  other  way.  Paul  believed  it  was  possible  for  anyone 
to  become  united  to  Christ  by  faith,  and  for  this  union  to  be  so  vital 
that  Christ  would  dwell  within.  He  knew  from  experience  that  Christ 
had  been  formed  in  him,  and  he  was  anxious  for  others  that  Christ 
should  be  formed  in  them. 

The  ethical  conception  of  the  religious  life  as  a  preparation  for 
the  Messianic  era,  which  came  to  him  through  his  Jewish  training, 
and  the  mystical  conception  of  union  with  the  deity  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  victory,  which  came  to  him  through  his  contact  with  the 
Greek  world,  helped  to  determine  the  character  of  his  Christian  experi- 
ence; but  a  new  element  entered  in  which  gave  these  old  forms  a  new 
content.  Under  the  influence  of  a  powerful  personality  which  had  been 
surrendered  to  Christ,  elements,  derived  from  Jewish  and  Greek  thought, 
were  blended  with  other  elements,  which  came  out  of  his  own  personal 
experience,  and  the  result  was  Paul's  conception  of  the  new  life.^^ 

38Shailer  Mathews  {The  Messianic  Hope  in  the  New  Testament,  1905,  p.  206), 
who  holds  that  Jewish  eschatology  influenced  Paul  very  largely  in  his  Christian 


conception  of  authority  in  the  pauline  writings  67 

Future  Things 

Paul's  teaching  concerning  future  things  naturally  falls  into  two 
general  divisions;  namely,  the  progress  of  the  gospel,  and  the  ushering 
in  of  the  new  age. 

The  Progress  of  the  Gospel 
a.  Statement  of  Paul's  teaching. 

In  his  thinking  about  the  progress  of  Christianity,  Paul's  supreme 
concern  was  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  Jews  to 
the  gospel,  and  in  stating  this  relationship,  he  gave  his  theory  of  the 
future  of  the  church.  He  beheved  God  was  rejecting  the  Jews  and 
choosing  the  Gentiles,  and  he  knew  he  must  have  had  a  purpose  in  what 
he  was  doing,  and  that  purpose  was  the  establishment  of  a  universal 
religion.  God  did  not  intend  Christianity  to  be  either  a  Jewish  or  a 
Gentile  religion;  it  was  to  be  a  religion  of  all  people,  and  his  great  pur- 
pose was  to  unify  these  antagonistic  elements.  God  was  not  rejecting 
all  the  Jews,  for  some  of  them  were  becoming  Christians;  but  the  Gen- 
tile converts  so  far  outnumbered  the  Jewish  that  it  could  be  said  that 
he  was  rejecting  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  and  was  choosing  the  Gentiles 
in  their  stead.  God  was  calling  enough  of  the  Jews  so  that  Christianity 
would  not  break  with  the  past,  but  would  be  tied  up  very  definitely  with 
the  old  faith;  but  he  was  calling  so  many  of  the  Gentiles  that  it  was 
evident  that  Christianity  was  not  intended  to  be  a  Jewish  religion. 
The  rejection  of  Christianity  by  so  many  Jews  would  tend  to  make  it 
acceptable  to  the  Gentiles,  while  its  acceptance  by  a  remnant  of  the 
Jews  would  tend  to  bridge  the  chasm  between  these  two  widely  sepa- 
rated peoples.  Paul  believed  it  was  by  the  fall  of  the  Jews  that  salvation 
had  come  to  the  Gentiles,  but  he  beheved  this  fall  was  only  temporary, 
for  the  zeal  of  the  Gentiles  would  provoke  the  Jews  to  jealousy,  and 
they  would  ultimately  turn  to  Christ,  and  thus  both  Jews  and  Gentiles 
would  be  won  for  Christianity.  There  is  a  lengthy  discussion  of  this 
subject  in  the  9th,  10th  and  11th  chapters  of  Romans. 

While  Paul  taught  that  God  was  rejecting  the  Jews  and  choosing 
the  Gentiles  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  great  historic  purpose,  yet 
he  believed  that  the  Jews  were  responsible  for  their  own  rejection, 
and  that  the  Gentiles  had  made  it  possible  for  God  to  choose  them. 
According  to  Paul,  God's  method  of  justification  from  the  beginning  was 

thinking  says:  "Eschatology  is  not  the  material  but  the  form  of  Paulinism."  He 
beUeves  the  element  which  was  fundamental  in  Paul's  conception  of  the  new  life  in 
Christ  was  his  own  Christian  experience. 


68  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

on  the  basis  of  faith.  The  law  was  only  a  stage  in  the  working  out  of  j 
God's  plan  which  was  to  reach  its  culmination  in  Christ,  and  because 
the  Jews  misunderstood  God's  plan  and  sought  justification  on  the  basis 
of  law,  he  was  unable  to  use  them.  Inasmuch  as  the  Gentiles  responded 
to  the  gospel  of  faith,  God  was  able  to  use  them  for  the  accompHshment 
of  his  purpose. 

While  Paul  believed  God  was  rejecting  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  yet  he 
believed  the  individual  Jew  could  accept  Christ  if  he  would,  and  he 
was  zealous  to  win  as  many  of  them  as  possible.  He  said  there  is  no 
distinction  between  the  Jew  and  the  Greek,  and  "whosoever  shall  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  Paul  believed  in  the 
ultimate  triumph  of  the  gospel.  The  great  mass  of  the  Jews  might 
reject  it  for  a  time,  but  finally  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  would  turn  to 
Christ, 
b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  the  progress  of 

the  gospel, 
(a)  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

As  has  been  previously  indicated,  the  idea  of  God  which  Paul  had 
when  he  was  a  Pharisee  would  make  his  doctrine  of  divine  election 
natural  to  him,  and  his  argument  in  Rom.  chaps.  IX-XI  is  based  on 
Scripture  passages.  He  showed  from  the  Scriptures  that  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews  and  the  choosing  of  the  Gentiles  did  not  indicate  that  God 
had  changed  his  plans,  but  his  course  then  was  in  perfect  harmony  with 
what  his  attitude  had  been  during  the  past  (Rom,  9 :6-13) .  He  argued  that 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  it  is  the  children  of  promise  that  are  the 
children  of  God,  and  not  the  children  of  the  flesh.  Not  all  the  children 
of  Abraham  were  included  in  the  promise  made  to  his  seed,  ''but  in  Isaac 
shall  thy  seed  be  called."  He  showed  from  the  Scriptures  that  this 
promise  was  narrowed  still  further:  Isaac,  who  was  the  child  of  promise, 
had  two  sons;  but  Jacob  was  chosen  for  the  accompHshment  of  God's 
purpose,  and  Esau  was  passed  over.  He  showed  how  this  choice  was 
dependent  entirely  on  the  will  of  him  that  did  the  choosing,  for  when 
it  was  said,  "the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger,"  the  children  were  not 
yet  born,  and  hence  they  had  not  done  anything  either  good  or  bad.  To 
make  the  divine  will  in  this  election  stand  out  more  prominently,  Paul 
quoted  a  passage  from  Malachi  (Mai.  1:2,  3):  "Jacob  I  loved  but  Esau  j 
I  hated."  ^ 

Paul  realized  that  his  doctrine  of  the  rejection  of  Israel  might  seem 
to  make  God  unrighteous,  and  he  sought  to  meet  this  objection  with 
examples  from  the  Old  Testament  history  (Rom.  9:14-21).    These  illus- 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  69 

trations  which  he  cited  show  that  God  was  free  to  do  as  he  pleased. 
In  reply  to  the  question — "Is  there  unrighteousness  with  God?"  Paul 
rephed :  "  God  forbid.  For  he  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 
I  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  have  compassion. " 
This  passage  is  quoted  from  Ex.  33:19,  and  in  its  historical  connection, 
it  has  little  bearing  on  divine  election.  It  is  a  part  of  the  reply  to 
Moses,  after  he  had  made  the  request  that  Jehovah  would  show  him 
his  glory  and  the  passage  states  that  Jehovah  will  be  gracious  to  Moses 
even  though  the  request  is  not  granted  in  the  manner  he  had  desired. 
Paul  used  this  language  because  it  suited  his  purpose,  and  not  because 
of  the  teaching  of  the  passage,  and  he  based  upon  it  the  conclusion 
that  God  arbitrarily  chooses  the  one  on  whom  he  wishes  to  show  mercy: 
''So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of 
God  that  hath  mercy. "  He  also  cited  the  example  of  Pharaoh,  whom 
Jehovah  raised  up  for  the  accompHshment  of  his  purpose:  "For  the 
Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh,  for  this  very  purpose  did  I  raise  thee  up, 
that  I  might  show  in  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  might  be  pub- 
lished abroad  in  all  the  earth."  This  is  a  quotation  from  Ex.  9:16, 
and  it  is  a  free  rendering  of  the  passage,  and  it  is  used  in  a  manner 
that  would  best  serve  his  purpose.  The  Septuagint  expresses  the 
thought  that  Jehovah  preserved  Pharaoh  for  the  accomplishment  of 
his  plan,  but  Paul  said  it  was  to  that  end  that  he  was  raised  up.  Paul 
rendered  the  passage  in  a  manner  which  would  enable  him  to  carry  the 
divine  election  back  to  the  beginning  of  Pharaoh's  reign,  and  thus  pre- 
sent a  more  striking  example  of  arbitrary  choice.  Paul  did  not  say 
anything  about  Pharaoh's  opposition  to  God  being  the  cause  of  his 
punishment,  but  he  thought  of  him  as  having  been  raised  up  for  the  pur- 
pose of  showing  God's  power:  "  So  then  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will, 
and  whom  he  will  be  hardeneth. " 

Paul  sought  to  meet  the  objection  that  God  has  no  right  to  find 
fault  with  those  whom  he  rejects,  if  he  chooses  whom  he  desires  (Rom. 
9:19-21);  and  while  he  did  not  quote  Scripture  to  prove  this  point, 
his  argument  was  evidently  based  on  the  Scriptures  (See  Rom.  9:21,22 
andlsa.  45:9;  29:16;  64:8;  Jer.  18:6).  God's  right  to  deal  with  his 
creatures  as  he  pleases  is  based  on  his  sovereign  power:  as  the  potter 
has  the  right  to  make  the  kind  of  vessel  he  chooses  from  the  lump  of 
clay,  so  God  has  the  right  to  use  his  creatures  as  he  desires  to  carry 
out  his  great  eternal  plan. 

Paul  quoted  Scripture  to  prove  his  contention  that  it  was  accord- 
ing to  God's  plan  that  the  Gentiles  should  accept  the  gospel,  and  that 


70  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

the  majority  of  the  Jews  should  reject  it.  God's  purpose  in  calling 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles  was  "that  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of 
his  glory  upon  the  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  afore  prepared  unto  glory" 
(Rom.  9:23).  He  quoted  two  passages  from  Hosea  to  show  that  God 
had  announced  beforehand  that  the  Gentiles  would  be  included  in  his 
plan,  and  he  quoted  two  passages  from  Isaiah  to  show  that  it  was  only 
a  remnant  of  Israel  that  would  be  called  (Rom.  9:27-29). 

Paul  quoted  Scripture  to  prove  that  the  Jews  were  responsible  for 
being  rejected,  and  that  the  Gentiles  had  made  it  possible  for  God  to 
choose  them.  He  argued  that  Christ  proved  to  be  a  stone  of  stumbling 
to  the  Jews,  since  righteousness  is  throughfaith^  while  thev  sought  it 
bjLWorks.  To'suBstantiate  thlrte-qtroIeH'a'passage  from  Isaiah,  intro- 
ducing it  with  the  statement,  "even  as  it  is  written"  (Rom.  9:32,  33). 
He  showed  that  it  is  according  to  the  Scriptures  that  the  gospel  should 
be  preached  to  the  Jews,  and  that  when  it  was  preached  they  would  be 
disobedient  and  rebellious  (Rom.  10:18,  21). 

Paul  quoted  Scripture  to  prove  his  argument  that  God's  purpose  in 
rejecting  the  Jews  was  to  win  the  Gentiles,  and  then,  through  the  zeal 
of  the  Gentiles,  provoke  the  Jews  to  jealousy,  and  thus  win  all  for 
Christ  (Rom.  10:19,  20).  He  also  used  the  Scriptures  to  prove  his  argu- 
ment that  God,  in  rejecting  the  unbelieving  Jews,  had  not  cast  off  his 
people,  but  he  had  preserved  a  remnant  for  the  working  out  of  his  plan 
(Rom.  11 :1-10).  His  final  quotation  of  Scripture  in  this  connection  was 
to  prove  his  philosophy  of  the  future,  that  the  hardening  of  Israel  was 
to  bring  in  the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles;  and  that  when  that  time  comes, 
Israel  will  turn  to  the  Lord  and  all  will  be  saved  (Rom.  11:25-27). 
This  is  a  composite  quotation,  and  the  two  passages  used  were  put 
together  so  that  they  would  best  serve  his  purpose. 

A  study  of  Paul's  argument  in  Rom.  chaps.  IX-XI  must  convince  one 
that  he  did  not  not  get  his  doctrine  of  God's  plan  for  the  future  from  the 
Old  Testament,  or  from  any  other  part  of  his  Jewish  inheritance,  for  it 
was  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Judaism.  After  Paul  had  stated  his  con- 
viction, which  was  derived  from  other  sources  than  Judaism,  he  then 
proceeded  to  quote  one  or  more  passages  of  Scripture  to  prove  it.  To 
accompKsh  his  purpose  he  sometimes  used  the  Scriptures  in  an  arbitrary 
manner.  He  sometimes  took  a  passage  out  of  its  connection,  and  put  a 
meaning  into  it  which  was  foreign  to  its  original  import;  and  he  some- 
times brought  together  remote  passages,  and  used  the  composite  as 
proof-texts.  This  use  of  the  Scripture  would  indicate  that  Paul  con- 
sidered it  authoritative,  but  it  would  also  indicate  that  there  was  for 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  7 1 

him  an  authority  which  was  more  vital  than  the  Scripture.  It  was  not 
through  his  reading  the  Old  Testament  that  Paul  reached  his  conclusion 
about  the  future  progress  of  the  gospel;  it  was  through  other  influences 
that  he  worked  out  his  philosophy,  and  then  he  reread  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  found  the  things  for  which  he  was  looking. 

(b)  The  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

The  Jews  of  Palestine  regarded  the  Gentiles  as  a  people  in  whom 
God  had  no  interest;  they  were  dogs  without  a  master.  Paul's  contact 
with  the  Gentiles  before  his  conversion  must  have  convinced  him  that 
some  of  them  were  more  worthy  of  God's  approval  than  were  many  of 
the  Jews.  He  must  have  understood  the  prevailing  religions  of  the 
Graeco-Roman  world,  and  when  he  became  a  Christian  and  realized 
that  justification  is  on  the  basis  of  faith,  he  must  have  felt  that  Chris- 
tianity would  be  more  acceptable  to  the  Gentiles  than  to  the  Jews.  Paul 
knew  that  the  people  of  the  Mediterranean  world  were  supremely  in- 
terested in  religion,  and  that  they  were  seeking  deliverance  through 
faith  in  a  dying  and  resurrected  deity;  and  when  he  had  been  led  to  a 
belief  in  a  Christ  who  had  died  and  had  been  raised  for  man's  justifica- 
tion, he  must  have  realized  that  this  gospel  would  be  popular  with  the 
Greeks,  and  that  before  the  Jews  would  accept  it  in  any  large  way,  their 
conception  of  religion  would  have  to  be  changed. 

(c)  The  life  and  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered. 

It  is  impossible  to  state  just  what  the  attitude  of  the  church  into 
which  Paul  entered  was  towards  the  future  spread  of  the  gospel.  Did 
the  primitive  Christians  expect  the  whole  Jewish  nation  to  turn  to  Christ? 
or  did  they  think  it  would  be  only  a  faithful  remnant  that  would  accept 
the  gospel  and  be  saved?  Did  they  believe  the  Christian  blessings 
would  be  enjoyed  by  the  Jews  only?  or  did  they  feel  that  the  Gentiles 
would  accept  Christ  and  the  Jewish  law,  which  would  make  them  a 
part  of  God's  chosen  people?  or  were  there  some  who  had  the  wider 
outlook,  and  believed  the  gospel  was  for  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews?  It 
is  impossible  to  answer  these  questions  definitely,  but  if  the  account 
in  Acts  is  accepted  as  giving  a  fairly  accurate  picture  of  conditions 
in  the  early  church,  Stephen  was  Paul's  forerunner  and  believed  in  a 
rehgion  which  was  broader  than  the  nation.  It  is  quite  probable  that 
Paul  disputed  with  Stephen  in  the  synagogue  of  "them  of  Cilicia"  (Acts 
6:9),  and  that  this  disputation  convinced  him  that  Stephen  blasphemed 
against  Moses  and  against  God.  It  must  have  been  some  such  expe- 
rience as  this  which  made  Paul  the  leading  persecutor  of  the  early  church. 
He  saw  that  Christianity  and  Jusaism  were  opposed  to  each  other,  for 


72  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

he  believed  the  success  of  Christianity  meant  the  destruction  of  the 
law.  This  could  have  been  nothing  more  than  the  basis  for  the  working 
out  of  his  theory,  but  it  did  undoubtedly  raise  questions  in  his  mind 
concerning  God's  relation  to  the  Jews.  His  sympathetic  knowledge  of 
the  religious  life  of  the  Greeks,  and  his  understanding  of  the  religious 
life  of  the  Jews  and  of  their  Scriptures,  along  with  the  interpretation 
of  Christianity  which  was  given  by  the  more  liberal  group  of  the  Chris- 
tians, prepared  him  for  the  later  development  of  his  great  doctrine, 
(d)  His  own  personal  experience. 

Paul  must  have  been  impressed  with  the  fact  that  from  the  very 
first  the  Jews  had  been  antagonistic  to  Christianity,  while  the  Gentiles, 
whenever  they  had  the  chance,  were  favorable  to  it.  He  was  con- 
fronted with  the  fact  that  the  Jews  had  rejected  Christ,  and  had  forced 
the  Romans  to  put  him  to  death.  He  was  confronted  with  the  further 
fact  that  it  had  been  the  Jews  who  had  opposed  him  in  his  missionary 
labors,  while  the  Gentiles  had  received  his  message.  Although  the  Jews 
were  his  own  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,  and  his  love  for  them  was 
so  strong  that  he  could  wish  he  himself  were  anathema  from  Christ  for 
their  sake,  yet  they  rejected  him  and  the  message  he  brought.  Although 
to  the  Israehtes  belonged  "the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  cove- 
nants, and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  prom- 
ises"; although  to  them  belonged  the  fathers,  and  even ''Christ  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,"  yet  the  gospel  which  he  preached  only  antagonized 
the  great  mass  of  them. 

The  fact  that  the  Jews  were  rejecting  Paul  and  the  gospel  which 
he  preached  would  seem  to  indicate  that  his  gospel  was  not  from  God, 
for  inasmuch  as  the  Jews  were  God's  chosen  people,  they  would  certainly 
be  the  ones  to  receive  the  gospel  which  Paul  was  preaching,  if  it  were 
from  God.  Paul  knew  from  his  own  experience  that  the  gospel  which  he 
was  preaching  was  divine,  for  God  had  revealed  it  to  him,  and  he  knew 
there  must  be  some  other  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  Jews  were 
rejecting  it,  and  he  found  that  explanation  in  the  great  plan  which 
God  was  working  out.  Paul  felt  that  God  had  been  carrying  out  the 
divine  plan  in  his  own  life.  He  had  separated  him  from  his  mother's 
womb,  and  had  called  him  by  his  grace  to  the  work  of  the  gospel.  The 
call  had  been  so  forceful  that  it  could  not  be  resisted  (Gal.  1:15).^^ 

'"J.  R.  Cohu  {St.  Paul  and  Modern  Research,  1911,  p.  278)  says  Paul  believed 
God's  will  was  absolute  in  working  out  the  divine  plan  in  his  life.  He  said  Paul 
believed  God  moulded  him  according  to  his  own  purpose,  and  in  spite  of  his  opposition. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  73 

Paul  did  not  regard  his  case  as  exceptional,  but  he  believed  God  was 
dealing  with  all  mankind  as  he  had  dealt  with  him. 

The  great  divine  purpose,  as  Paul  conceived  it,  was  fundamentally 
the  result  of  his  own  experience.  His  Jewish  training  and  his  mission- 
ary activities  had  convinced  him  that  the  relation  between  Jews  and 
Gentiles  was  so  antagonistic  that  the  Gentiles  would  reject  Christianity, 
if  the  Jews  as  a  nation  should  accept  it.  In  order  that  Paul  could 
get  a  start  in  a  new  community,  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  find  a  group 
which  had  some  common  religious  ideas  with  himself.  He  found  such 
a  group  in  the  Jewish  synagogue.  A  few  of  the  Jews  accepted  his 
message,  but  most  of  them  opposed  him.  On  the  other  hand,  the  pros- 
elytes were  enthusiastic  and  brought  in  other  Gentiles  to  hear  him.  The 
result  was  that  in  a  short  time  Paul  and  his  followers,  having  been  driven 
out  of  the  synagogue  by  the  Jews,  organized  a  church  which  was  com- 
posed of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the  Gentiles  being  in  the  majority. 
Paul's  experience  must  have  convinced  him  that  if  the  majority  of  the 
Jews  in  a  community  should  accept  the  gospel  and  convert  the  synagogue 
into  a  church,  the  new  movement  would  then  be  regarded  as  Jewish, 
and  the  Gentiles  would  hold  themselves  aloof.  Paul  regarded  himself 
as  the  apostle  to  the  Gentile  world,  but  his  special  love  was  for  the  Jews, 
and  his  heart's  desire  and  supplication  to  God  was  for  them  that  they 
might  be  saved.  It  was  doubtless  his  ambition  to  win  the  Jews  of 
the  Dispersion,  as  well  as  the  Gentiles,  for  Christ;  but  the  opposition 
of  the  Jews  and  his  success  with  the  Gentiles  convinced  him  that  God 
was  working  out  his  great  plan  in  a  different  manner  than  he  had  at 
first  anticipated. 

Paul's  conviction  that  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  would  ultimately  be 
won  for  Christ  must  have  resulted  largely  from  his  own  experience. 
The  fact  that  Jews  and  Gentiles,  in  the  various  communities  where  he 
had  labored,  had  been  united  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  were  working 
together  in  harmony,  convinced  him  that  it  would  be  possible  for  the 
Gentiles  and  the  Jews  to  become  one  in  Christ.  Perhaps  the  zeal  of 
the  Gentile  Christians  in  many  communities  had  caused  the  Jewish 
Christians  to  become  more  zealous  for  their  own  countrymen,  and  Paul 
was  convinced  that  this  would  ultimately  be  the  result  for  the  whole 
nation. 

Paul's  experience  must  have  been  one  of  the  most  formative  factors 
in  producing  the  conviction  that  the  Jews  were  responsible  for  God's 
rejecting  them,  and  that  it  was  on  account  of  something  that  the  Gen- 
tiles had  done  that  God  had  chosen  them.     Paul  knew  from  his  Jewish 


74  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

training  and  his  Christian  experience  that  Christianity  was  fundamen- 
tally different  from  Judaism.  The  Jews  were  seeking  the  religious  life 
through  law,  and  they  would  naturally  oppose  anything  which  seemed 
to  minimize  the  importance  of  law.  God  could  not  use  them  for  the 
accomplishment  of  his  purpose,  because  they  could  not  appreciate  his 
method  of  saving  the  world.  Paul  knew  from  his  own  Christian  experi- 
ence and  from  his  contact  with  the  Greek  world  that  there  was  much 
in  common  between  Christianity  and  the  Greek  reHgions.  The  Greeks 
were  seeking  the  religious  life  through  faith  in  the  deity,  and  they  would 
naturally  welcome  a  higher  type  of  faith-rehgion  God  was  able  to 
use  the  Greeks  for  the  accon^pUshment  of  his  purpose,  because  they 
were  able  to  appreciate  his  method  of  saving  the  world.  It  was  because 
the  message  of  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  made  no  appeal  to  the 
Jews,  that  God  was  not  able  to  use  them  for  the  carrying  out  of  his 
great  plan,  and  it  was  because  this  message  did  appeal  to  the  Greeks  that 
God  chose  them  to  take  the  place  of  the  Jews. 

Paul's  Jewish  training  and  his  Greek  environment,  together  with 
his  contact  with  the  more  hberal  type  of  Christian  thinking,  prepared 
him  for  his  acceptance  of  Christianity,  and  for  the  conviction  that 
Christianity  was  for  the  Greeks  as  well  as  for  the  Jews.  These  things 
also  prepared  him  for  a  reahzation  of  the  fact  that  the  gospel  was  more 
acceptable  to  the  Gentiles  than  to  the  Jews.  The  problems  for  which 
this  training  prepared  Paul  were  raised  and  solved  in  the  school  of 
experience,  and  the  result  was  his  doctrine  of  the  future  of  the  church. 

The  New  Age 
a.  Statement  of  his  teaching. 

Paul  did  not  attempt  to  give  a  definite  statement  of  his  concep- 
tion of  the  future  age.  His  teaching  on  this  point  was  practical,  rather 
than  speculative,  and  it  was  incidental  to  the  main  purpose  in  his  letters. 
But  from  his  many  references  to  the  new  age,  it  is  possible  to  determine 
quite  definitely  what  his  belief  was.  He  legarded  the  present  age  as 
evil  (Gal.  1:4),  but  he  beheved  it  would  pass  away  (I  Cor.  7:29-31). 
Paul  believed  this  present  age  is  to  a  large  extent  dominated  by  Satan 
and  his  hosts,  but  he  believed  their  power  would  finally  be  broken. 
After  this  evil  age  shall  have  passed  away,  a  new  age  will  be  inaugurated 
in  which  the  will  of  God  will  prevail.  This  new  age  will  be  inaugurated 
by  a  crisis  which  he  designated  as  "the  Day  of  the  Lord. "  God  will 
usher  in  the  new  age  by  sending  his  Son  from  heaven  (I  Thess.  3:13). 
He  will  descend  from  heaven  "with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  arch- 
angel, and  with  the  trump  of  God"  (I  Thess.  4:16).     At  the  time  of 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  75 

his  coming  there  will  be  a  resurrection  of  the  righteous  dead,  and  the 
righteous  who  are  living  at  that  time  will  be  changed,  and  they  shall  all 
be  ''caught  up  in  the  clouds  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air"  (I  Thess.  4:16, 
17).  It  is  evident  from  Paul's  earlier  epistles  that  he  expected  thepaxou- 
sia  to  be  soon.  The  present  age,  because  of  its  sin  and  suffering,  is 
designated  as  "night,"  but  "the  night  is  far  spent  and  the  day  is  at 
hand"  (Rom.  13:11,  12).  Paul  made  some  statements  which  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  he  meant  to  include  himself  among  those  who 
would  be  alive  at  the  time  of  Christ's  coming  (See  I  Thess.  4:15  ff.; 
I  Cor.  15:51  ff.).  Paul's  later  writings  do  not  place  as  much  stress 
on  the  parousia  as  do  his  earlier  ones,  and  some  have  concluded  that 
he  developed  in  his  eschatology,  so  that  he  was  not  expecting  the  im- 
mediate return  of  the  Lord. 

The  resurrection  held  a  prominent  place  in  Paul's  thought,  and 
because  of  existing  conditions,  it  was  discussed  at  length  in  I  Corin- 
thians and  I  Thessalonians.  Paul  had  evidently  given  the  impression 
to  the  Christians  at  Thessalonica  that  the  Lord's  coming  was  to  be 
soon  and  that  it  would  be  a  blessed  privilege  to  participate  in  it;  but 
some  of  their  number  had  subsequently  died,  and  they  beheved  they 
would  sustain  a  great  loss  in  the  final  advent  (I  Thess.  4:13-15).  Timo- 
thy doubtless  reported  their  perplexity  to  Paul,  and  this  furnished  one 
of  the  occasions  for  the  letter.  The  situation  in  the  Corinthian  Church 
was  somewhat  different.  There  were  some  in  this  church  who  denied 
the  resurrection,  and  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  I  Corinthians,  Paul 
discussed  the  resurrection  at  some  length.  The  idea  of  the  resurrection 
which  Paul  presents  in  the  two  letters  is  the  same.  When  the  last 
trump  sounds  the  righteous  dead  will  be  raised.  It  will  all  take  place 
in  an  instant — "in  a  moment,  in  the  twinkhng  of  an  eye."  They 
will  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  they  will  be  changed  into  the  likeness 
which  they  are  to  have  in  the  new  age.  Paul  seems  to  have  beheved 
in  immortahty  apart  from  the  resurrection,  but  it  was  a  vague  and 
indefinite  sort  of  existence.  Apart  from  the  resurrection,  man's  spirit 
exists  in  a  disembodied  or  unclothed  state,  and  Paul  shrank  from  the 
thought  of  that  (II  Cor.  5:4).  He  gave  a  very  interesting  discussion 
of  the  heavenly  body  in  I  Cor.  15:35  ff.,  and  he  presented  the  idea  that 
the  heavenly  body  will  not  be  the  same  as  the  earthly  body.  He  held 
that  as  God  gives  to  each  plant,  animal,  and  star  the  kind  of  body 
which  it  needs  for  its  existence,  so  he  will  give  to  the  soul  the  kind  of 
body  that  will  be  best  adapted  to  its  heavenly  existence.  According 
to  Paul's  thinking,  there  will  be  a  close  connection  between  the  natural 


76  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

body  which  is  sown,  and  the  spiritual  body  which  shall  be  raised;  but 
they  are  difiFerent  bodies,  for  ''flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  king- 
dom of  God." 

In  connection  with  the  parousia  there  will  be  a  judgment,  and  at 
the  time  of  the  judgment,  each  one  will  receive  according  to  what  he 
has  done  (II  Cor.  5:10).  This  is  to  be  a  judgment  of  punishment  unto 
death  for  the  unrighteous  (Rom.  5:16,  18),  and  of  acquittal  unto  life 
for  the  godly  (Rom.  5:16,  17;  8:1).  The  judgment  will  be  a  time  of 
wrath,  but  the  righteous  need  have  no  fear,  for  Christ  will  deliver  them 
(I  Thess.  1:10).  God  will  be  on  the  judgment  seat  (Rom.  14:10),  and 
each  one  will  be  required  to  appear  before  him  to  give  an  account  of 
even  the  secret  things  (Rom.  2:16).  Christ  is  to  be  connected  with  the 
judgment,  and  he  is  sometimes  represented  as  the  :'udge  (I  Cor.  4:4), 
and  the  place  of  judgment  is  sometimes  designated  as  "the  judgment 
seat  of  Christ"  (II  Cor.  5:10).  Paul  beHeved  God  would  judge  all 
men  according  to  the  gospel  which  he  had  been  preaching,  and  Christ 
would  be  the  standard  of  judgment  (Rom.  2:16). 

After  judgment  shall  have  been  pronounced,  and  death  shall  have 
been  conquered,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  longer  any  enemy  for  the 
righteous,  then  Christ  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God.  When 
Christ  shall  have  put  all  his  enemies  under  his  feet,  and  shall  have  sub- 
jected everything  to  the  will  of  God,  then  he  will  subject  himself  to 
God,  so  that  he  may  be  all  in  all. 

All  this  would  seem  to  imply  an  intermediate  state  extending  from 
the  time  of  death  until  the  day  of  the  Lord,  but  Paul  made  many  state- 
ments which  would  seem  to  indicate  that  he  also  had  a  different  con- 
ception. He  spoke  of  death  as  a  departure  to  be  with  Christ,  and  he 
said  this  departure  was  far  better  than  a  continued  earthly  existence 
(Phil.  1:23).  Paul  felt  that  when  one  left  the  body  he  went  to  be  with 
Christ  (II  Cor.  5:6-8).  To  be  at  home  in  the  body  is  to  be  absent  from 
the  Lord,  and  to  be  absent  from  the  body  is  to  be  at  home  with  the 
Lord,  and  Paul  believed  it  was  better  to  be  with  the  Lord  than  to  be  in 
the  body.  These  passages  would  indicate  that  Paul  had  the  feeling, 
at  least  sometimes,  that  instead  of  passing  into  an  intermediate  state 
to  wait  until  the  day  of  the  Lord,  the  believer  goes  directly  to  be  with 
Christ. 

b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  the  new  age. 
(a)  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

Almost  everything  Paul  said  about  future  things  can  be  duplicated 
from  Jewish  eschatology.    Paul  was  familiar  with  Jewish  eschatology 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  77 

before  he  became  a  Christian,  and  unless  these  Jewish  ideas  were  modi- 
fied by  other  influences,  they  continued  to  represent  his  Christian 
thought.  The  Jews  beheved  this  present  age  is  evil,  and  is  to  a  large 
extent  controlled  by  Satan  and  the  evil  spirits,  but  they  were  convinced 
that  it  was  to  be  of  short  duration,  and  that  it  would  be  followed  by  the 
new  age  which  was  to  be  perfectly  good,  and  in  this  new  age  God's 
will  was  to  be  done.  The  Jews  believed  the  new  age  was  to  be  intro- 
duced by  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  who  was  to  judge  the  enemies  of 
God.  It  was  easy  for  Paul,  as  it  was  for  the  other  Christians,  to  trans- 
fer these  Jewish  ideas  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  According  to 
Jewish  belief,  the  righteous  Jews  who  had  died  would  be  raised  and 
would  be  permitted  to  share  with  the  righteous  Jews  who  were  living 
in  the  Messianic  glory.  The  Jews  beheved  that  between  the  time  of 
death  and  the  resurrection  the  soul  would  have  a  cheerless  existence  in 
Sheol.  During  this  intermediate  period  it  would  exist  in  a  naked  state, 
being  without  a  body.  This  unclothing  of  the  soul  by  its  separation 
from  the  body  in  which  it  formerly  had  its  existence  was  caused  by 
death,  and  the  Hebrew  shrank  from  that.  The  Hebrew  conception  of 
death  included  something  more  than  that  experience  which  closes  this 
earthly  existence,  or  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  the  body;  they 
thought  of  it  as  the  separation  of  the  soul  from  God.  That  notion 
formed  the  background  for  Paul's  statement  in  II  Cor.  5:1-4,  but  the 
rest  of  the  passage  shows  that  his  Jewish  thought  about  death  had  been 
materially  changed  by  other  influences, 
(b)  The  thought  of  the  Greek  world. 

Paul's  ideas  about  the  future  life  undoubtedly  reflect  the  influence 
of  the  thought  of  the  Greek  world.^^  Paul's  conception  of  the  spiritual 
body  is  more  like  the  thought  of  the  Greeks  than  of  the  Hebrews.  The 
Hebrews  believed  in  a  bodily  resurrection,  and  they  felt  that  the  life 
in  the  future  age  was  to  be  something  like  the  life  in  this  age,  with  the 
exception  that  everything  was  to  be  ideahzed.  That  conception  of  the 
future  furnished  the  basis  for  the  question  about  the  resurrection  which 
the  Sadducees  put  to  Jesus.  This  was  undoubtedly  a  stock  question 
which  they  hurled  at  their  antagonists,  and  the  Pharisees,  because  of 
their  materialistic  conception  of  the  future,  were  unable  to  answer  them. 
The  mystery-cults  emphasized  immortality  through  union  with  the  diety . 
The  deity  who  had  conquered  death  for  himself  would  give  victory  to 

"Percy  Gardner  {The  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  p.  127)  says:  "The 
eschatological  views  of  Paul  mark  a  transition  from  purely  Jewish  to  Hellenistic  no- 
tions. " 


b 


78  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

mortals  who  were  initiated  into  fellowship  with  him.  The  Greek  idea 
of  the  flesh  would  forbid  the  thought  of  bodily  existence;  immortality 
was  the  thing  the  Greek  was  anxious  about.  Paul's  idea  of  the  future 
life  seems  to  have  been  a  combination  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  thought. 
He  no  longer  beheved  in  a  resurrection  of  the  same  body  which  had  been 
placed  in  the  tomb;  neither  was  he  satisfied  with  mere  immortaUty,  for 
that  was  to  leave  the  soul  in  an  unclothed  condition,  and  his  Jewish 
nature  shrank  from  that.  He  believed  God  would  provide  a  spiritual 
body  which  would  be  adapted  to  spiritual  existence.  Instead  of  there 
being  a  resurrection  of  the  body  which  had  been  placed  in  the  tomb, 
he  beheved  God  would  change  the  old  body  as  he  changes  the  grain 
which  has  been  sown  into  the  new  plant  (I  Cor.  15:42-44):  "It  is  sown 
in  corruption;  it  is  raised  in  incorruption :  it  is  sown  in  dishonor;  it  is 
raised  in  glory:  it  is  sown  in  weakness;  it  is  raised  in  power:  it  is  sown  a 
natural  body;  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body." 

As  pointed  out  above,  Paul  appears  to  have  had  two  different  con- 
ceptions of  the  state  of  the  soul  between  death  and  the  parousia.  In 
the  earlier  writings,  especially  I  Thessalonians  and  I  Corinthians, 
he  expressed  the  conviction  that  the  righteous  dead  are  resurrected  at 
the  time  of  the  parousia,  and  then  changed  into  the  likeness  of  Christ 's 
glorious  body,  and  then  they  pass  into  the  presence  of  God.  In  some  of 
the  later  writings,  especially  Philippians,  he  expressed  the  conviction 
that  instead  of  the  soul  waiting  until  the  parousia  to  receive  its  new 
body,  it  passes  at  once  into  the  presence  of  Christ.  Many  writers  hold 
that  Paul  changed  his  conception  of  the  resurrection,  and  inasmuch 
as  one  idea  is  set  forth  in  I  Corinthians  and  a  different  idea  seems  to 
be  intimated  in  II  Corinthians,  some  hold  that  the  change  took  place 
in  the  interval  between  these  two  letters.^^  It  is  impossible  to  fix  as 
definitely  as  some  have  done  the  time  when  Paul  changed  his  concep- 
tion of  the  future  hfe,  but  is  is  evident  that  the  Jewish  idea  of  an  inter- 
mediate state,  in  which  the  unclothed  soul  waits  for  the  body  which 
is  to  be  given  at  the  parousia,  did  not  continue  to  satisfy  him.  Greek 
thought  played  an  important  part  in  producing  this  change  in  Paul's 
feeUngs  about  the  future,  but  the  change  could  not  be  explained  on  the 
basis  of  Greek  thought  alone, 
(c)  The  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered. 

When  Paul  told  the  Thessalonians  that  those  who  were  aUve  at  the 
time  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord  would  not  precede  those  who  were  fallen 

"Otto  Pfleiderer  (Urchristentum,  1887,  pp.  161,  293,  298)  thinks  the  change 
was  due  to  the  fact  that  during  this  time  he  became  acquainted  with  the  literature  of 
Alexandria. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  79 

asleep,  he  said  he  was  speaking  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  (I  Thess.  4:15). 
It  is  not  probable  that  he  meant  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  he 
had  received  a  revelation  from  the  Lord  concerning  the  parousia,  and 
that  he  was  communicating  this  to  the  Thessalonians  for  their  com- 
fort and  assurance.  He  was  evidently  referring  to  some  oral  tradition 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  bearing  on  this  point.^^  The  eschatological 
discourses  of  Jesus,  as  they  are  given  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  have 
much  in  common  with  the  eschatological  sections  in  Paul's  writings,  but, 
as  has  been  previously  indicated,  it  is  impossible  to  tell  just  how  much 
these  discourses  were  modified  by  the  thought  of  the  writers. 

According  to  the  accounts  given  in  the  first  part  of  Acts,  the  early 
disciples  were  expecting  an  immediate  setting  up  of  the  kingdom,  and 
they  were  expecting  it  to  be  in  Jewish  fashion.  When  they  saw  Jesus 
after  his  resurrection,  they  asked  him  if  he  would  at  this  time  restore 
the  kingdom  to  Israel  (Acts  1 :6).  When  these  same  disciples  were  look- 
ing into  heaven  after  their  ascended  Lord,  the  two  men  in  white  apparel 
assured  them  that  he  should  "so  come  in  like  manner  as  they  had  beheld 
him  going  into  heaven"  (Acts  1:11).  According  to  the  account  given  of 
Peter's  sermons,  the  motive  which  he  urged  for  repentance  was  that  they 
might  thus  help  to  prepare  the  way  so  that  the  Lord  would  come  (Acts 
3:19-21):  "Repent  ye  therefore,  and  turn  again,  that  your  sins  may  be 
blotted  out,  that  so  there  may  come  seasons  of  refreshing  from  the  pres- 
sence  of  the  Lord;  and  that  he  may  send  the  Christ  who  hath  been 
appointed  for  you,  even  Jesus:  whom  the  heaven  must  receive  until 
the  times  of  the  restoration  of  all  things. "  The  book  of  Acts  was  not 
written  until  after  Paul's  day,  and  the  material  was  undoubtedly 
colored  by  the  thought  of  later  times,  but  it  is  almost  certain  that  the 
early  disciples  expected  Christ  would  soon  come  to  set  up  his  kingdom, 
and  when  he  should  come,  the  wicked  would  be  destroyed,  and  those  who 
had  accepted  him  would  be  saved.  Paul  received  these  ideas,  and  he 
was  influenced  by  them  in  the  development  of  his  thinking, 
(d)  His  own  personal  experience. 

Paul  did  not  attempt  to  give  a  systematic  statement  of  his  view 
of  future  things,  but  in  his  references  to  the  future,  he  was  moved  by 
the  practical  impulse.  The  practical  significance  of  Paul's  eschatology 
is  manifest,  when  it  is  compared  with  the  speculations  of  the  Jewish 

*2  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy  {St.  Paul's  Conception  of  the  Last  Things,  1904,  p.  97)  gives 
parallel  passages  from  Paul's  writings  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels  to  show  that  Paul 
was  influenced  by  the  tradition  of  Jesus'  teaching  concerning  the  parousia  and  the 
judgment. 


80  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

apocalyptical  writings.  The  details  which  are  so  conspicuous  in  the 
Jewish  apocalypses  are  very  few  in  Paul's  writings.  Paul's  Christian 
experience  did  not  produce  as  striking  a  change  in  the  Jewish  escha- 
tology  which  he  inherited  as  it  did  in  some  other  phases  of  his  thought, 
and  that  is  to  be  expected,  as  eschatology  is  to  a  large  extent  outside 
the  realm  of  experience,  and  is  presented  to  the  mind  by  pictures,  and 
these  pictures  become  fixed.^^  These  pictures  would  naturally  remain, 
unless  they  were  modified  by  other  influences  which  became  a  part  of 
experience. 

Paul's  statements  concerning  the  future  were  positive  in  character, 
as  he  did  not  discuss  the  speculative  questions  upon  which  many  were 
thinking.  His  interest  was  eternal  life.  This  had  been  made  certain, 
and  that  certainty  rested  upon  the  experience  of  the  living  Christ, 
who  had  become  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  are  asleep.  Paul's  union 
with  the  Christ,  who  had  conquered  death,  had  made  immortaHty  cer- 
tain to  him.  Death  had  no  more  terrors  for  him,  but  it  would  mean  his 
release  from  the  body  in  order  that  he  might  be  present  with  the  Lord. 
The  mystery-cults  must  have  influenced  Paul,  but  this  conviction  was 
worked  out  in  his  own  experience,  and  hence  it  was  different  from  that  of 
the  Greeks.  Paul's  conversion-experience  must  have  influenced  his 
thought  of  the  resurrection.  He  was  convinced  that  he  had  seen  the 
heavenly  Christ,  and  he  believed  he  would  one  day  become  like  him. 
Paul  had  experienced  salvation  through  Christ,  and  he  knew  this  would 
be  perfected  at  the  parousia  (Rom.  13:11).  Complete  salvation,  the 
foretaste  of  which  he  had  already  experienced,  would  include  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  body  (Rom.  8:23).  Paul  had  experienced,  the  transformation 
of  his  Spirit  into  the  likeness  of  Christ's  Spirit,  and  he  knew  that  his 
body  would  be  changed  into  the  likeness  of  Christ's  glorious  body  (Phil. 
3:21). 

SUMMARY 
If  we  have  correctly  represented  Paul,  our  study  of  the  doctrinal 
elements  in  his  epistles  shows  that  he  was  influenced  in  the  develop- 
ment of  his  thought  from  many  different  sources.  His  Jewish  training 
formedJhe  background  for  every  Christian_doctrine,  and  although  what 
he  inherited  from  Judaism  was  modified  by^ther  influences,  much  of  it 
remained  as  a  vital  part  of  his  thinking.]  The  fact  that  he  retained 
these  Jewish  elements  and  used  them  in  his  Christian  teaching  indicates 
that  he  believed  truth  could  be  derived  from  the  Jewish  religion;  but 

«  See  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy,  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Last  Things,  1904,  p.  36. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  81 

the  fact  that  he  modified  and  even  rejected  some  of  his  Jewish  inheri- 
tance would  indicate  that  there  was  something  outside  of  Judaism 
which  was  for  him  authoritative,  and  which  determined  what  he  should 
accept,  and  what  he  should  reject.  Inasmuch  as  Paul  quoted  the 
Scriptures  to  prove  his  argument,  and  quoted  them  as  ultimate  proof,  / 
it  is  evident  that  he  regarded  them  as  authoritative.  He  believed  he 
could  derive  truth  about  God,  man  and  his  world,  Christ,  the  new  life, 
and  future  things  from  the  Scriptures,  and  that  others  could  derive 
truth  from  the  same  source.  His  use  of  the  Scriptures,  however,  would 
indicate  that  there  was  something  else  which  was  for  him  authoritative,  i 
and  which  determined  the  use  which  he  made  of  them.  There  were  other 
influences,  along  with  the  Scriptures,  which  led  him  to  his  conclusions, 
and  he  used  the  Scriptures  to  prove  these  because  they  were  regarded 
as  authoritative,  but  he  sometimes  took  the  passages  quoted  out  of 
their  connection  and  read  his  own  meaning  into  them. 

Much  that  came  out  of  Paul's  Greek  environment  became  a  part  of 
his  Christian  thinking,  and  his  doctrine  was  very  different  from  what 
it  would  have  been,  if  he  had  been  a  Palestinian  Jew  instead  of  a  citi- 
zen of  the  Graeco-Roman  world.  He  evidently  believed  he  could  derive 
truth  from  the  thought  of  the  Greeks,  but  inasmuch  as  this  Greek 
thought  was  changed  and  transformed  by  other  influences,  there  was 
evidently  something  besides  the  thought  of  the  world  in  which  he  lived 
which  was  for  him  ultimate  authority,  and  which  helped  to  determine 
the  use  which  he  made  of  the  influences  which  came  from  the  life  and 
thought  of  his  world. 

Paul  was  influenced  by  the  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he 
entered,  and  his  Christian  doctrine  cannot  be  explained  apart  from  that. 
He  believed  he  could  derive  truth  from  the  primitive  Christians,  and 
especially  from  their  traditions  about  Jesus.  But  inasmuch  as  the 
doctrines  of  the  primitive  church  were  much  modified  in  Paul's  thinking, 
there  must  have  been  something  apart  from  the  primitive  church  that 
was  really  authoritative  for  him,  and  this  determined  the  use  which 
he  made  of  the  teachings  and  traditions  of  the  early  disciples. 

That  which  was  fundamental  for  Paul  in  the  development  of  his 
Christian  doctrine  was  his  own  personal  experience.  His  Jewish  train- 
ing furnished  the  basis  for  the  development  of  all  these  doctrines.  This 
Jewish  training,  and  his  Greek  environment,  and  the  life  and  thought 
of  the  primitive  disciples  helped  to  determine  his  Christian  experience, 
but  they  do  not  fully  explain  it.  Paul's  conception  of  Christianity 
was  not  Jewish;  neither  was  it  Greek,  nor  primitive  Christian;  it  was 


82  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

not  merely  a  combination  of  all  these;  it  was  peculiarly  his  own.  It 
was  worked  out  in  the  school  of  experience  under  his  wonderful  crea- 
tive personality.  Jewish  training,  Greek  environment,  and  contact  with 
the  primitive  Christian  thought  furnished  him  the  material,  but  this 
was  reconstructed  so  that  the  result  was  Paulinism.  The  experience 
which  he  interpreted  as  a  revelation  of  Christ,  and  the  daily  experience 
which  he  interpreted  as  union  with  Christ,  or  the  indweUing  Spirit, 
and  his  great  purpose  of  winning  the  Gentile  world  for  Christ,  were 
important  factors  in  the  development  of  his  thought,  and  he  was  guided 
by  these  in  the  use  which  he  made  of  his  material.  Ideas  about  God, 
man  and  his  world,  Christ,  the  new  life,  and  future  things,  if  they  con- 
tributed to  his  experience,  or  did  not  conflict  with  it,  were  accepted 
whether   they  were  Jewish,   Greek,   or  primitive   Christian. 


CHAPTER  III 

PROBLEMS  RESULTING  FROM  THE  PREACHING  OF  THE 
GOSPEL  TO  THE  GENTILES 

The  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles  inevitably  raised  some 
perplexing  problems.  Christianity  began  in  a  Jewish  environment, 
and  it  had  to  adapt  itself  to  new  conditions  when  it  was  planted  in 
the  Gentile  world.  Many  of  the  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies  were 
repulsive  to  the  Gentiles,  and  many  of  the  practices  of  the  Gentiles 
were  an  abomination  to  the  Jews,  and  when  Christianity  included  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  it  had  to  face  the  task  of  unifying  these  antagonistic 
elements. 

The  Relation  of  the  Law  to  the  Gospel 

It  was  inevitable  that  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  law  to  the 
gospel  should  be  raised  as  soon  as  Christianity  passed  beyond  the  bor- 
ders of  Judaism.  Primitive  Christianity  was  Jewish.  According 
to  Acts,  the  Jewish  Christians  observed  the  national  feasts  and  holy 
days  (See  Acts  2:1;  18:13;  20:6,  16).  They  participated  in  the  worship 
of  the  temple  and  the  synagogue.  They  prayed  at  the  customary  hours. 
They  observed  the  fasts  and  underwent  voluntary  abstinence,  binding 
themselves  by  special  vows,  like  all  pious  Jews.  They  scrupulously 
avoided  all  unlawful  foods  and  all  legal  defilement.  They  had  their 
children  circumcised. 

All  these  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies  were  foreign  to  the  life  of 
the  Gentiles,  and  they  constituted  the  great  barrier  between  them  and 
the  Jews.  Paul  and  his  co-laborers  realized  that  to  insist  on  these 
Jewish  regulations  would  be  a  hindrance  to  their  work,  and  they  must 
have  realized  that  if  they  disregarded  these  regulations  entirely  they 
would  be  in  danger  of  breaking  with  the  mother  church.  The  situa- 
tion was  made  more  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  Christian  communi- 
ties in  the  Gentile  world  were  composed  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
If  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies  were  imposed  on  the  Gentiles,  but  few 
Gentiles  would  become  Christians;  if  Jews  were  denied  the  privilege 
of  their  rites  and  ceremonies,  none  of  them  would  become  Christians, 
and  they  would  bitterly  oppose  the  church;  and  if  the  Gentiles  became 
Christians  without  keeping  the  law,  and  if  the  Jews  who  had  become 
Christians  still  insisted  on  all  keeping  the  law,  there  could  be  no  fellow- 
ship in  these  churches.  If  the  Jewish  Christians  insisted  on  the  privilege 
of  adhering  rigidly  to  all  Jewish  requirements,  it  would  be  difficult 


84  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

to  maintain  fellowship  in  these  mixed  churches,  for  it  would  be  necessary 
for  them  to  regard  the  Gentile  Christians  as  unclean;  they  could  not 
visit  in  their  homes;  they  could  not  even  sit  down  with  them  at  the  Lord's 
Table. 

Paul  went  to  the  Gentiles  and  preached  the  gospel_of_  justifica- 
tion_byJaith,  and  imposed  no  Jewish  ordinances  whatever.  The  Gen- 
tiles received  his  gospel  with  joy,  but  a  Jewish  element  in  the  church 
strenuously  opposed  the  innovations  which  Paul  was  making.  The 
point  at  issue  was,  not  whether  the  Gentiles  should  be  admitted  as 
Christians,  but  on  what  conditions  they  should  be  admitted.  Paul 
I  held  that  the  Jewish  ordinances  should  not  be  imposed  on  the  Gentiles, 
while  his  antagonists  insisted  that  the  Jewish  covenant  was  eternal  in 
its  demands,  and  that  no  one  could  be  saved  who  refused  to  conform 
to  the  requirements  of  this  covenant.  The  Judaizers  were  wiUing  that 
the  Gentiles  should  be  received  into  the  church  providing  they  would 
keep  the  Jewish  regulations  in  addition  to  the  Christian. 

It  was  natural  that  the  Jewish  Christians  who  beheved  in  the  eter- 
nal vahdity  of  the  law  should  bitterly  oppose  the  gospel  which  Paul 
was  preaching,  and  it  was  just  as  natural  that  he  should  zealously 
defend  it. 

Statement  of  PauVs  Position 

PauFs  chief  concern,  in  his  discussion  of  the  relation  of  the  law  to 
the  gospel,  was  for  the  Gentile  Christians.  He  did  not  object  to  the 
Jews  keeping  the  law,  and  it  is  very  probable  that  he  continued  to 
jkeep  it  himself,  but  he  was  determined  that  it  should  not  be  forced 
on  the  Gentiles.  The  significance  of  the  law  for  Paul  was  determined 
by  its  relation  to  justification.  If  theJawLXOuId  save  a  man,  it  might 
thenJi^valuable  to  the^Gentiles;  but  ifjhfijasi^  cannot  save,  aaCth^e 
1  is  something  else  that  can,  then  its  present  value  is  questionable. 

)  In  all  his  writings  Paul  insisted  that  justification  cannot  be  on  the 
basis  of  law.  Before  one  could  be  justified  by  law  it  would  be  necessary 
for  him  to  keep  every  part  of  it,  for  to  fail  in  one  point  is  to  be  guilty 
of  all.  Inasmuch  as  it  is  impossible  to  keep  the  whole  law,  it  is  evident 
that  God  never  intended  it  to  be  a  means  of  justification.  Paul  asserted 
that  his  righteousness  was  not  of  the  law,  but  through  faith  in  Christ 
(PhiL  3:9),  and  he  rebuked  the  Galatians  for  thinking  about  turning  to 
the  law,  since  they  had  received  the  Spirit  by  the  hearing  of  faith  (Gal. 
3:^f  4).  In  the  first  part  of  Romans  he  showed  that  justification  on 
the  basis  of  law  is  a  failure,  and  he  then  said  (Rom.  3:21,  22):  *'But 
now  apart  from  the  law  a  righteousness  of  God  hath  been  manifested, 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  85 

being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets;  even  the  righteousness  of 
God  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  unto  all  them  that  believe."    Paul 
argued  that  justification  by  faith  was  not  something  recent,  for  Abraham   % 
was  justified  by  faith,  and  he  lived  before  the  law  was  given  (R^m.  4:1   / 
ff.;  Gal.  3:6). 

Unless  otherwise  defined  vofws,  as  it  was  used  by  Paul,  denoted  the 
Mosaic  law,  and  when  he  used  the  article  he  made  it  very  specific  that 
he  meant  to  designate  the  Mosaic  law.  When  Paul  referred  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  he  was  evidently  thinking  of  the  system  as  a  whole  and 
not  of  any  single  part.  The  whole  Old  Testament  system  was  for  him 
a  single  code,  and  he  believed  it  had  failed  to  justify  and  should  not  be 
made  binding  on  the  Gentiles. 

The  question  regarding  the  purpose  of  the  law  was  inevitably  raised 
by  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.     He  urged  that  the  inheri- 
tance was  not  of  the  law,  and  that  the  law  could  not  justify,  and  yet  it 
had  to  be  reckoned  with,  for  it  was  the  greatest  heritage  of  Judaism, 
and  it  had  been  divinely  given.      What  was  the  purpose  of  the  law  if   I 
it  was  not  to  justify?    This  question  was  before  Paul's  mind  when  he 
wrote  to  the  Galatians,  and  it  holds  a  still  more  prominent  place  in 
his  letter  to  the  Romans.    The  statement  that  justification  is  through 
faith  in  Christ  would  seem  to  set  the  law  aside,  and  make  God's  work   . 
during  the  past  appear  to  be  a  failure,  but  Paul  believed  the  law  had   * 
held  an  important  place  in  the  working  out  of  God's  great  plan. 

Paul  developed  his  doctrine  of  the  law  under  the  influence  of  his 
Christological  ideas.  Inasmuch  as  God's  ultimate  method  of  justi-  . 
fication  is  through  faith  in  Christ,  the  law  must  have  been  a  prepara-  I 
tion  for  that.  It  was  **  added  because  of  transgressions,  till  the  seed 
should  come  to  whom  the  promise  hath  been  made"  (Gal.  S}19).  The 
law  threatened  transgressors,  but  it  could  not  give  victory.  \  The  law 
failed  to  secure  its  own  ends,  because  it  was  external  in  character.  ^  It 
could  threaten  punishment,  but  it  could  not  justify,  and  inasmuch  as  it 
could  not  give  a  man  victory,  it  must  have  been  preparatory  for  some- 
thing else  which  would  give  victory.  If  the  law  could  make  alive, 
there  would  be  no  need  of  the  gospel  of  faith;  but  inasmuch  as  it  could 
not  do  that,  it  must  have  been  preparatory  for  him  who  could  make  alive.  ^ 

Instead  of  the  law  making  alive,  it  showed  the  helplessness  of  man- 
kind; it  demonstrated  the  fact  that  all  are  under  sin,  and  because  of 
this  demonstration,  *'  the  promise  of  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  might  be  given 
to  them  that  believe."  The  law  was  not  final;  neither  was  it  a  failure 
according   to  its  original  purpose;  it  was  to  help   humanity  till  ''the 


86  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

seed"  should  come.  It  was  a  pedagogue  to  bring  men  to  Christ  (Gal. 
3:24),  and  when  men  had  been  brought  to  Christ,  the  work  of  the  peda- 
gogue was  completed. 

Paul  believed  the  law  prepared  for  Christ  by  increasing  the  knowl- 
edge of  sin  (Rom.  3 :20) .  The  law  makes  it  plain  to  a  man  that  the  things 
which  he  is  doing  are  sins  (Rom^  7 :7) :  "I  had  not  known  sin,  except 
through  the  law:  for  I  had  not  known  coveting,  except  the  law  had  said. 
Thou  shalt  not  covet."  Paul  evidently  beheved  sin  was  in  the  world 
before  the  law  was  given,  but  men  did  not  know  it  was  sin  (Rom.  5:13), 
and  the  purpose  of  the  law  was  to  compel  men  to  know  what  sin  is. 
Because  the  law  taught  men  what  sin  is  and  then  failed  to  give  them 
power  to  overcome  it,  it  was  a  preparation  for  Christ,  who  could  give 
^victory. 

Paul  seems  to  have  believed  that  the  law  not  only  increased  the 
knowledge  of  sin,  but  that  it  actually  multiplied  sin  (Rom.  5:20):  "And 
the  law  came  in  besides,  that  the  trespass  might  abound.^'  He  felt  that 
sin,  which  dwells  in  the  members,  and  which  is  naturally  antagonistic 
to  the  law,  became  more  active  when  the  law  was  given  (Rom^7:7,  8). 
I  The  purpose  of  the  law  was  not  to  save  sinners;  but  it  was  to  multiply 
sin,  in  order  that  the  guilty  conscience  might  be  more  completely  de- 
livered over  to  the  grace  of  God.  Its  purpose  was  not  so  much  to  help 
man  as  it  was  to  make  him  reahze  his  helplessness  and  his  absolute 
dependence  on  God.^ 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  law  could  not  justify,  Paul  asserted 
that  it  was  divine  in  its  origin  (Gal.  3:19),  and  in  its  nature  was  "holy, 
just,  and  good"  (Rom.  7:12).  Hemsisted  that  the  law  is  not  sin  (Rom. 
7:7),  but  is  spiritual  (Rom.  7:14),  and  its  failure  is  due  to  the  fleshly, 
sinful  nature  of  man  (Rom.  7:3).  He  believed  the  law  would  have 
been  able  to  give  victory  if  man  had  been  different,  but  inasmuch  as 
man's  nature  was  sinful,  what  was  intended  to  be  unto  life  was  found 
to  be  unto  death  (Rom.  7:10).  Paul  did  not  believe  God  had  failed  in 
his  plan,  or  had  made  a  mistake.  He  was  convinced  that  God  knew 
all  things  from  the  beginning,  hence  he  must  have  known  before  he  gave 
the  law  that  men  would  be  unable  to  keep  it,  and  his  purpose  must  have 
been  to  place  men  under  sin  and  show  them  their  helplessness,  so  that 
he  might  have  mercy  on  them. 

^  H.  WeiDel  {Paulus,  p.  7;  Eng.  trans.,  p.  9)  perhaps  exaggerates  this  conception 
of  Paul  when  he  says:  "Paul  is  the  great  discoverer  of  the  fact  that  God  and  the  law 
are  contrary,  the  one  to  the  other,  and  that  the  only  way  in  which  the  law  can  lead  to 
God  is  by  becoming  our  torment  and  awaking  in  us  a  longing  for  escape." 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  87 

Paul  believed  the  law  was  done  away  in  Christ  (Gal.  3:19,  24,  25), 
for  when  the  Master  came  the  pedagogue  was  no  longer  needed.  He 
believed  Christ,  by  introducing  justification  by  faith,  brought  the  law 
to  an  end  (Rom.  10:4),  and  he  felt  no  loss  had  been  sustained,  because 
while  that  which  passed  away  was  glorious,  that  which  remained  was 
much  more  glorious  (II  Cor.  3:11). 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Notion  of  the  Relation  of  the 
Law  to  the  Gospel 
a.  His  Jewish  Training. 

As  a  Jew,  Paul  had  thought  much  about  what  God  demands  of  those 
who  are  acceptable  to  him.  He  regarded  the  law  as  a  revelation  of 
God's  will,  and  he  believed  those  who  kept  the  law  were  acceptable  to 
God.  He  tried  to  keep  it,  and  "as  touching  the  righteousness  which 
is  in  the  law,"  he  was  found  blameless  (Phil.  3:6).  Paul  must  have 
felt  in  those  days  before  his  conversion  that  he  had  had  some  success  in 
keeping  the  law,  and  that  he  had  been  benefitted  by  it.  He  must  have 
felt  that  the  law  had  been  a  great  blessing  to  the  Jews,  and  that  it  had 
been  a  restraining  power  in  their  lives.  He  must  have  been  familiar 
with  some  of  the  higher  motives  which  the  law  urges  as  a  basis  for 
obedience  (Ex.  19:4),  and  he  must  have  been  famihar  with  the  fact  that 
the  law  demands  purity  of  heart  and  morality,  as  well  as  outward  con- 
formity to  ritual.2  But  the  legalistic  conception  of  religion  prevailed 
among  the  Jews  of  Paul's  day,  and  his  soul  must  have  become  weary 
of  the  unceasing  round  of  ceremony  and  ritual.     He  must  have  realized 

2  R.  Travers  Herford  {Pharisaism,  1912,  pp.  175  fif.)  criticises  Paul  very  severely 
for  his  condemnation  of  the  law.  He  says  if  Paul  had  given  his  estimate  of  Judaism 
while  he  was  still  a  Pharisee,  his  criticism  would  have  been  valuable,  but  inasmuch 
as  his  statements  were  made  after  he  had  left  Judaism,  he  thinks  his  estimate  is  natu- 
rally prejudiced.  He  says:  "A  convert  seldom  takes  the  same  view  of  the  religion 
he  has  left  as  is  taken  by  those  who  remain  in  it, "  Herford  challenges  Paul's  state- 
ment that  the  law  does  not  give  victory.  Hv:  says:  "Paul's  universal  negative  chal- 
lenges the  contradiction  of  all  the  saints,  martyrs  and  heroes  of  Israel."!  Herford 
criticises  Paul's  position  that  the  law  was  a  burden  to  the  Jew  because  he  regarded  it 
as  so  many  commandments  he  had  to  keep,  and  holds  that  instead  of  the  Pharisee 
regarding  the  precepts  of  the  law  as  so  many  commandments  he  had  to  keep,  he 
regarded  them  as  so  many  opportunities  to  serve  God.  He  says:  "If  there  was  ever 
a  Pharisee  in  such  a  state  of  despair  that  he  should  cry,  *0  miserable  man  that  I  am! 
who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death? '  he  would  think  of  the  Torah  not 
as  the  cause  of  his  anguish,  but  as  the  hope  of  his  deliverance.  And  it  was  the  Torah 
itself  which  kept  him  from  ever  falling  into  such  despair;  for  it  was  God's  own  word  of 
help  and  guidance,  the  record  of  his  endless  mercy,  the  revelation  of  his  love. " 


88  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

at  times  that  the  law  did  not  satisfy  him,  and  he  perhaps  longed  for 
something  that  would  bring  victory  and  peace.  This  Jewish  apprecia- 
tion of  the  law  and  of  its  shortcomings  was  a  decided  preparation  for 
his  theory  of  the  relation  of  the  law  to  the  gospel. 

b.  His  Greek  environment. 

Paul's  life  in  the  Greek  world  must  have  convinced  him  that  there 
were  some  Gentiles  who  had  done  better  without  the  law  than  had  many 
Jews  with  the  law.  He  had  seen  the  uncircumcised  keep  the  law  while 
the  circumcised  failed  to  keep  it  (Rom.  2:26,  27).  He  had  doubtless 
seen  many  Gentiles  who  were  Uving  uprighTTives,  and  who  apparently 
had  a  peace  and  assurance  which  he  had  not  found.  This  would  be  an 
important  contribution  to  his  later  conviction  that  a  man  is  justified 
by  faith  in  Christ  and  not  by  works  of  the  law,  and  it  would  be  a  still 
more  important  contribution  to  the  conviction  that  the  Gentiles  should 
not  be  required  to  keep  the  law. 

c.  The  hfe  and  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered. 

Paul's  contact  with  the  Christians  whom  he  was  persecuting  must 
have  convinced  him  that  they  had  something  which  he  did  not  have. 
They  had  a  peace  and  confidence  in  their  suffering  which  he  did  not  have 
in  his  triumph.  He  must  have  realized  that  their  peace  and  assurance 
were  not  due  to  the  fact  that  they  had  kept  the  law,  for  he  knew  he  had 
kept  it  more  faithfully  than  had  they.  He  must  have  associated  their 
peace  with  their  new  reHgion,  and  while  at  first  he  believed  their  atti- 
tude was  due  to  their  fanaticism  and  stubbornness,  he  later  began 
to  wonder  if  their  new  religion  had  not  done  something  for  them  which 
law  had  failed  to  do  for  him.  This  helped  to  prepare  him  for  his  renun- 
ciation of  Judaism,  and  for  his  declaration  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law. 

d.  His  own  personal  experience. 

Paul's  pre-Christian  experience  had  convinced  him  that  it  is  impos- 
sible for  a  man  to  keep  the  whole  law.^  He  had  beheved  in  the  law  and 
had  done  his  best  to  keep  it,  but  he  realized  that  he  had  failed  (R^a, 
7:7  ff.).  The  more  he  studied  the  law  the  more  conscious  he  became 
of  his  own  failure,  for  instead  of  the  law  helping  him,  it  pointed  out 
his  shortcomings.  He  knew  the  law  was  good,  and  his  experience  con- 
vinced him  that  his  failure  was  due  to  sin  which  dwelt  in  his  members. 

When  Paul  became  a  Christian,  his  basis  of  justification  was  changed. 
Instead  of  being  law  or  merit;  it  was  faith  in  Christ.  Through  faith  in 
Christ  he  had  found  what  law  could  not  give  him,  and  he  had  seen 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  89 

Gentiles  who  had  been  guilty  of  the  grossest  sins  transformed  through 
this  faith.  Faith  in  Christ  not  only  gave  him  victory  over  sin,  but 
the  peace  which  had  come  into  his  soul  convinced  him  that  this  faith 
had  made  him  acceptable  to  God.  In  the  light  of  this  new  experience, 
his  conception  of  the  law  was  completely  changed.  He  reahzed  that 
there  was  no  place  for  law  in  his  new  life,  and  as  he  looked  back  over 
his  past  experiences,  he  felt  that  law  had  been  a  burden  rather  than  a 
help.  Paul  was  thus  led  from  a  position  of  confidence  in  the  law,  and 
admiration  for  it,  to  a  position  of  criticism. 

It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  Paul,  before  his  conversion,  would 
have  agreed  with  the  criticism  which  he  later  passed  upon  the  law.  It 
is  not  probable  that  he  realized  his  failure,  before  his  conversion,  as 
he  did  afterwards.  He  looked  back  upon  his  Pharisaic  days  in  the  light 
of  his  Christian  experience,  and  things  looked  different  to  him  from 
what  they  once  did.  His  training  in  Jewish  law,  and  especially  in 
rabbinism;  his  experience  in  trying  to  keep  the  law,  and  his  observa- 
tion of  the  failure  of  others  who  tried  to  keep  it;  his  contact  with  the 
Greeks  who  had  found  victory  apart  from  the  law;  and  his  opposition 
to  the  Christians  who  had  found  peace  and  happiness  in  Jesus  Christ, 
prepared  him  for  the  soul  struggles  which  led  him  to  forsake  the  law 
and  consecrate  his  life  to  a  proclamation  of  the  gospel  of  faith  in  Christ. 
His  new  experiences  contrasted  with  the  failures  of  other  days  led  him 
to  deny  the  vaHdity  of  the  law  as  a  means  of  making  men  righteous. 
But  while  Paul's  new  experiences  led  him  to  criticise  the  law,  he  never 
got  entirely  away  from  the  old  feeling  of  reverence  for  it,  and  as  a  result 
he  made  statements  which  would  seem  to  contradict  each  other. 

Paul  believed  in  justification  by  faith,  as  the  result  of  his  own  per- 
sonal experience,  and  he  sought  to  establish  others  on  the  basis  of  their 
experience.  In  his  attempt  to  confirm  the  Galatians  in  their  Christian 
liberty  so  that  the  Judaizers  could  not  unsettle  them,  he  appealed  first 
of  all  to  what  faith  had  meant  to  them.  He  reminded  them  that  they 
did  not  receive  the  Spirit  by  the  works  of  the  law  but  by  the  message  of 
faith,  and  he  urged  them  not  to  be  disloyal  to  their  own  experience 
(Gal.  3:1-3).  He  appealed  to  their  experience  of  the  special  manifes- 
tations of  the  Spirit's  power  as  an  indication  that  justification  by  faith 
had  divine  approval  He  asked  them  how  they  received  the  Spirit  which 
enabled  them  to  work  miracles.  This  question  would  imply  that  these 
Galatian  Christians  had  been  performing  these  wonders  before  the 
Judaizers  came  into  their  midst,  and  that  the  Judaizers  did  not  add 


90  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

any  power  which  they  did  not  have  before,  for  it  was  not  by  the  works 
of  the  law  but  by  the  hearing  of  faith  that  they  had  received  the  Spirit 
which  enabled  them  to  do  these  things. 

In  defending  his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  Paul  made  fre- 
quent references  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  his  argument  which  is  based 
i  on  the  Scriptures  is  very  ingeniously  wrought  out.  A  careful  study  of 
his  use  of  the  Scriptures  in  this  connection  must  convince  one  that 
instead  of  deriving  his  conception  of  justification  by  faith  from  the 
Old  Testament,  it  came  to  him  through  his  experience,  and  then  he  used 
the  Old  Testament  to  prove  it.  One  of  the  most  striking  passages  in 
which  Paul  used  the  Old  Testament  to  confirm  his  doctrine  of  justi- 
cation  by  faith  is  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  of  Galatians.  He  read 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  back  into  the  Old  Testament,  and 
/  maintained  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith  and  not  by  works  of 
'  law,  and  that  being  true,  the  real  sons  of  Abraham  are  those  who  are  of 
I  faith  (Gal.  3:6,  7).  This,  he  urged,  was  accordihg  to  the  plan  of  the 
ScripturespfoT^en  it  declares  that  the  gospel  was  preached  to  Abra- 
ham that  in  him  all  nations  should  be  blessed,  it  was  foreseeing  the 
fact  that  God  would  justify  the  Gentiles  by  faith.  Paul  said  this 
promised  blessing  could  not  have  referred  to  those  who  are  under  the 
law,  for  "as  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law  are  under  a  curse." 
He  substantiated  this  statement  by  a  quotation  from  Deut.  27:26 
"  Cursed  is  every  one  who  continueth  not  in  all  things  that  are  written 
in  the  law  to  do  them"  (GaLjjlO).  The  passage  quoted  implies  that 
a  person  ought  to  keep  the  law,  and  that  a  curse  will  rest  upon  him  if 
he  does  not  keep  it;  but  Paul  knew  from  his  own  experience  and  from  the 
experience  of  others,  as  he  had  observed  it,  that  no  one  is  able  to  do  all 
the  things  that  are  written  in  the  law,  and  hence  he  concluded  that  it 
puts  a  man  under  a  curse. 

Paul  insisted  that  it  is  evident  from  the  Scriptures  that  a  man  is 
not  justified  before  God  by  the  law  (Gal.  3:11,  12).  He  was  quoting 
from  Hab.  2:4  when  he  said:  "The  righteous  shall  live  by  faith."  He 
used  this  passage  as  though  the  prophet  had  had  his  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification by  faith  in  mind,  while  in  reality  Habakkuk  was  thinking  of 
something  that  was  entirely  different.  Paul  said  the  law  is  not  of  faith, 
and  the  only  way  a  man  can  live  under  law  is  by  doing  the  things  which 
it  requires  (Gal.  3:12).  He  was  quoting  from  Lev.  18:5  when  he  said: 
"He  that  doeth  them  shall  live  in  them,"  and  the  discussion  which 
follows  shows  that  Paul  believed  it  is  impossible  for  one  to  do  the  things 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  91 

required  by  the  law,  hence  it  brings  death  instead  of  life.  Lev.  18:5 
emphasizes  the  fact  that  the  IsraeUtes  should  keep  the  statutes  and 
ordinances  of  Jehovah,  and  it  is  impHed  that  it  is  possible  for  them 
to  keep  these  requirements,  and  they  are  assured  that  if  they  do  them 
they  shall  live  in  them.  Experience  had  convinced  Paul  that  the 
keeping  of  all  the  statutes  was  an  impossible  task,  and  while  the  law 
promised  a  blessing  to  those  who  kept  it,  it  is  really  a  curse,  for  it  is 
impossible  for  any  one  to  keep  it.  Paul  held  that  Christ  redeemed  us 
from  this  curse  of  the  law  by  becoming  a  curse  for  us,  and  he  quoted 
Deut.  21:23:  "  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree, "  to  prove  his 
argument.  He  took  this  passage  out  of  its  connection  and  read  a  mean- 
ing into  it  which  was  foreign  to  its  original  import.  Paul's  purpose 
was  to  prove  that  the  law  is  a  curse  instead  of  a  blessing,  and  that  Christ 
freed  men  from  it;  hence  the  Gentiles,  as  well  as  the  Jews,  can  receive 
the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith.  He  was  influenced  largely 
by  his  own  personal  experience  in  reaching  this  conclusion,  and  he  used 
the  Scriptures  very  freely  to  prove  his  contention. 

Paul  was  rabbinical  in  the  use  which  he  made  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  show  that  the  promise  to  Abraham  was  not  a  promise  to  Jews  only 
(Gal.  3:15,  16).  He  said  the  promise  was  not  to  Abraham  and  his 
lineal  descendants,  but  it  was  to  Abraham  and  one  that  was  to  come 
through  him:  "He  saith  not,  and  to  seeds,  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one, 
and  to  thy  seed  which  is  Christ. "  The  Old  Testament  promise  which 
Paul  cited  undoubtedly  referred  to  the  lineal  descendants  of  Abraham 
and  not  to  a  particular  person  who  was  to  come  through  him.  "Seed" 
in  the  Hebrew  is  a  collective  term,  and  is  frequently  used  in  the  singular 
to  mean  descendants.  Paul  used  it  in  that  sense  in  Rom.  4:18,  although 
in  order  that  he  might  make  the  Genesis  passage  accomplish  his  pur- 
pose in  Gal.  3:15,  16,  he  said  it  could  not  have  that  meaning. 

In  his  use  of  the  Scriptures  to  prove  that  inasmuch  as  the  promise 
was  made  to  Abraham  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  law 
was  given,  the  gospel  is  fundamental,  Paul  did  violence  to  the  historical 
sense  of  the  passage.  He  argued  that  the  law  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  covenant  with  Abraham,  for  the  promise  was  made  before  the  law 
was  given;  but  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  circumcision,  which 
was  the  rite  that  Paul  was  opposing,  was  the  basis  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham. 

Paul  allegorized  an  historical  incident  to  prove  his  contention  that 
those  who  are  seeking  justification  by  faith  are  the  real  children  of 
Abraham.    He  admonished  them  that  desire  to  be  under  law,  to  hear 


92  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

what  the  law  has  to  say,  and  by  means  of  allegory,  he  read  into  the 
passage  a  meaning  which  is  the  opposite  of  what  it  was  intended  to 
teach  (Gal.  4:21  ff.).  After  relating  the  Genesis  incident  of  the  two 
sons  of  Abraham,  and  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  son  of  the 
handmaid  was  born  after  the  flesh  while  the  son  of  the  free  woman  was 
born  according  to  promise,  he  said  these  things  contain  an  allegory. 
By  means  of  this  allegory,  he  attempted  to  show  that  the  Jews  who  were 
seeking  to  be  justified  by  law  were  like  the  son  who  was  born  after  the 
flesh;  while  those  who  were  seeking  to  be  justified  by  faith  were  like 
the  child  that  was  born  according  to  promise.  The  women  who  were 
the  mothers  of  these  two  children  represented  the  two  covenants.  Hagar 
was  used  as  a  type  of  the  covenant  from  Mount  Sinai,  bearing  children 
unto  bondage,  and  Mount  Sinai  "answereth  to  the  Jerusalem  that  now  is: 
for  she  is  in  bondage  with  her  children."  Those  who  are  justified  by 
faith  have  as  their  mother  the  Jerusalem  which  is  above,  which  is  free. 
Paul  argued  that  those  who  were  seeking  to  be  justified  by  faith  were 
children  of  the  promise,  as  was  Isaac;  and  as  Isaac  was  persecuted  by 
him  who  was  born  after  the  flesh,  so  the  children  of  promise  in  his  day 
were  being  persecuted  by  those  who  were  children  of  the  flesh.  Just 
as  the  handmaid  and  her  son  were  cast  out,  so  God  was  accepting  the 
children  of  faith  and  was  rejecting  the  children  of  the  flesh.  In  his 
use  of  the  Scriptures  in  working  out  this  allegory,  Paul  overlooked  the 
fact  that  it  was  the  descendants  of  Isaac  to  whom  the  law  was  given, 
and  that  they  were  the  ones  who  were  in  bondage  to  the  law. 

The  conclusions  which  Paul  sought  to  estabUsh  in  the  third  and 
fourth  chapters  of  Galatians  were  not  derived  from  the  Old  Testament; 
they  were  the  result  of  experience,  and  the  Old  Testament  was  used  in 
the  most  arbitrary  manner  to  prove  them.  In  his  discussion  in  Romans 
of  the  relation  of  the  law  to  justification,  Paul  used  the  Scriptures  very 
much  as  he  had  done  in  Galatians.  Having  shown  from  experience 
that  justification  is  not  by  works  of  the  law,  he  sought  to  prove  that 
this  conclusion  was  in  harmony  with  the  divine  plan,  for  it  was  wit- 
nessed by  the  law  and  the  prophets.  He  discussed  the  justification 
of  Abraham  in  much  the  same  manner  as  he  had  done  in  Galatians 
(See  Rom.  4:1  ff.). 

In  seeking  to  prove  the  superiority  of  justification  by  faith  in  Christ 
to  justification  by  law  on  the  ground  that  faith  is  within  while  the  law 
is  external  to  one,  Paul  quoted  Scripture  in  the  most  arbitrary  manner 
possible  (Rom.  10:5-8).  His  statement  is  undoubtedly  based  on  Deut. 
30:11-14,  and  the  purpose  of  this  passage  is  to  teach  that  the  law  is 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  93 

not  too  difficult  for  people  to  keep;  for  it  is  not  something  that  is  afar 
off,  but  it  is  in  the  heart.  "It  is  not  in  heaven,  that  thou  shouldst 
say.  Who  shall  go  up  for  us  to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  and  make 
us  to  hear  it,  that  we  may  do  it?  Neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea,  that 
thou  shouldst  say,  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring  it  unto 
us,  and  make  us  to  hear  it,  that  we  may  do  it?  But  the  word  is  very 
nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  mayest  do  it. " 
It  is  made  emphatic  in  this  passage  that  it  is  not  difficult  to  keep  the 
law,  for  it  is  not  afar  off;  it  is  not  up  in  heaven,  or  over  the  sea,  but  it 
is  in  the  heart.  Paul's  contention  was  that  the  law  is  external,  and 
hence  it  can  not  lead  one  into  righteousness,  and  he  used  this  Scrip- 
ture to  prove  it.  To  make  this  passage  accompHsh  his  purpose,  he 
substituted  faith  where  the  passage  intended  law:  ''But  what  saith 
it?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart:  that  is  the 
word  of  faith  which  we  preach";  and  it  is  evident  from  the  next  state- 
ment that  Paul  was  thinking  of  faith  in  Christ  in  contrast  with  the 
letter  of  the  law:  "Because  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  Jesus 
as  Lord  and  shalt  believe  in  thy  heart  that  God  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved." 

Paul  did  not  always  correctly  represent  the  historical  value  and 
purpose  of  the  law,  and  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  him  to  have 
reached  his  conclusions  from  a  study  of  the  Old  Testament  itself.  It 
was  other  influences,  the  most  important  of  which  was  his  own  personal 
experience,  which  led  him  to  his  convictions,  and  he  then  read  these 
back  into  the  Old  Testament,  and  used  it  to  prove  his  argument. 

Paul  was  not  always  consistent  in  his  statements  concerning  the 
significance  of  the  law.^  Paul  did  not  write  as  a  theologian,  and  he 
did  not  try  to  be  consistent.  He  wrote  as  a  religious  teacher,  and  he 
expressed  his  feelings  in  his  writings,  and  in  emphasizing  one  phase  of  a 
subject,  he  sometimes  lost  sight  of  other  phases.  Paul's  great  purpose 
was  to  defend  his  doctrine  of  salvation  through  faith  in  Christ,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  justify  the  existence  of  the  law.  His  own  personal 
experience,  which  began  as  a  result  of  his  Jewish  training,  his  knowledge 
of  the  life  and  thought  of  the  Greek  world,  his  contact  with  the  early 
disciples,  and  his  experiences  during  his  missionary  activities  among  the 

3  Percy  Gardner  {The  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  p.  46)  says:  "At  one 
time  he  speaks  of  it  as  holy,  just,  and  good,  the  direct  gift  of  God  to  Moses.  Some- 
times he  speaks  of  it  as  marking  a  passing  stage  in  the  development  of  man,  but  now 
outworn  and  r  ady  to  pass  away.  Sometimes  he  even  seems  to  regard  it  as  provoca- 
tive to  sin,  and  unable  to  help  a  man  in  the  trouble  into  which  it  leads  him. " 


94  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Gentiles,  furnished  the  basis  for  his  doctrine.  Guided  by  this  expe- 
rience, he  reasoned  out  his  conception  of  the  significance  of  the  law, 
and  its  relation  to  the  gospel,  and  he  then  read  his  ideas  back  into 
the  Old  Testament.  Paul  was  always  consistent  on  one  point,  and 
that  was  the  basis  of  justification,  for  his  experience  had  convinced 
him  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  in  Christ  and  not  by  works  of  the 
law.  He  was  not  always  consistent  in  his  discussion  of  the  purpose  of 
the  law,  for  that  is  not  so  definitely  within  the  realm  of  experience, 
and  his  conclusions  were  determined  somewhat  by  the  purpose  he  had  in 
mind  in  his  discussion  of  the  subject. 

The  Christian's  Relation  to  Idolatry 

The  people  of  the  pagan  world  were  in  close  contact  with  idolatry, 
and  their  lives  were  permeated  with  idolatrous  customs.  The  Chris- 
tian converts  in  Gentile  communities  had  formerly  participated  in  all 
these  pagan  practices,  and  in  living  the  Christian  life  in  these  communi- 
ties, they  were  brought  face  to  face  with  the  problem  of  idolatry.  They 
were  troubled  about  what  their  attitude  should  be  towards  these  old 
customs.  That  was  especially  true  of  the  Christians  in  Corinth,  and  in 
their  letter  to  Paul,  they  seem  to  have  made  inquiry  concerning  the 
true  attitude  of  Christians  towards  life  that  is  touched  by  idolatry.  The 
problem  of  idolatry,  as  it  concerned  them,  related  primarily  to  the  meat 
of  animals  which  had  been  ofiFered  in  sacrifices.  Was  it  right  for  Chris- 
tians to  buy  the  fliesh  of  sacrificial  animals  which  was  being  sold  in 
the  markets?  Was  it  right  for  Christians  to  go  into  the  homes  of 
their  pagan  neighbors  and  eat  with  them  and  partake  of  the  meat  which 
was  being  served,  when  there  was  the  possibiUty  that  it  might  have 
been  offered  in  sacrifice?  The  life  of  the  community  was  built  upon 
idolatry,  and  the  feasts  held  in  the  pagan  temples  were  important  func- 
tions. In  their  pre-Christian  days  they  had  participated  in  these 
feasts,  and  they  wanted  to  know  if  it  would  be  right  for  them  to  con- 
tinue to  have  a  part  in  them. 

Statement  of  Paul's  Teaching 

Paul  in  his  teaching  on  the  subject  of  idolatry,  was  guided  by  the 
practical  situation,  but  his  statements  were  very  explicit.  He  said 
there  is  no  objection  to  a  Christian  eating  any  meat  which  is  sold  in 
the  market,  and  when  one  goes  to  the  market  in  a  pagan  community, 
he  should  purchase  what  he  wants  and  not  ask  any  questions  for  "con- 
science' sake"  (I  Cor.  10:25).    Paul  beheved  it  was  proper  for  Chris- 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  95 

tians  to  eat  any  sort  of  meat,  inasmuch  as  it  all  belongs  to  the  Lord 
(I  Cor.  10:26):  "For  the  earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the  fullness  thereof." 
He  felt  that  there  could  be  no  objection  to  a  Christian  eating  meat, 
even  if  it  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice,  as  there  is  no  difference  between 
this  meat  and  any  other  meat,  for  an  idol  is  nothing,  as  "there  is  no 
God  but  one"  (I  Cor.  8:4).  If  a  Christian  does  not  know  that  the  meat 
was  from  an  animal  which  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice  to  an  idol,  it 
cannot  hurt  him,  since  the  meat  is  the  same  as  any  other;  and  that 
being  true,  he  should  not  ask  any  questions  about  it.  Paul  said  there 
could  be  no  objection  to  a  Christian  attending  a  feast  in  an  unbeliever's 
home,  if  he  was  disposed  to  do  so;  and  when  he  did  attend  such  a  feast, 
unless  he  knew  the  meat  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice,  he  should  eat 
what  was  set  before  him,  asking  no  questions  for  conscience'  sake  (I 
Cor.  10:27-29).  He  should  not  ask  any  question,  for  if  it  was  stated  in 
reply,  that  the  meat  was  from  a  sacrificial  animal,  he  might  seem  to  be 
sanctioning  idolatry  if  he  ate;  and  at  the  same  time  a  question  would 
be  raised  in  his  own  mind,  and  by  eating  he  would  be  violating  his  own 
conscience.  But  if  some  one  should  state  that  the  meat  was  from  a 
sacrificial  animal,  a  Christian  should  not  eat  it;  he  should  refrain  for  / 
the  sake~<^lhrone  who  had  made  it  known  (I  Cor.  10:28,  29).  Paul 
even  went  so  far  as  to  intimate  that  a  strong  Christian  might  with- 
out injury  to  himself  eat  the  meat,  even  if  he  knew  it  was  from  a  sacri- 
ficial animal,  since  an  idol  is  nothing;  but  inasmuch  as  all  men  have 
not  this  knowledge,  the  strong  Christian  must  not  permit  his  liberty 
to  become  a  "stumbling-block  to  the  weak"  (I  Cor.  8:4-13).  Many  of 
the  members  of  the  Christian  community  at  Corinth,  having  but  recently 
come  out  from  paganism,  looked  upon  the  meats  which  had  any  connec- 
tion with  the  pagan  sacrifices  as  being  closely  connected  with  the  idols 
which  they  had  formerly  worshipped.  They  would  not  think  of  eating 
this  meat,  and  they  would  be  offended  to  see  a  Christian  brother  eat. 
Paul  advised  the  strong  Christians  to  refrain  for  the  sake  of  the  weaker 
ones.  His  principle  was  that  eating  does  not  make  a  man  either  better 
or  worse,  and  one  is  to  do  as  he  likes  unless  his  eating  injures  his  own 
conscience,  or  shocks  the  feehngs  of  a  weaker  brother.  When  eating 
injures  self  or  a  weaker  brother  one  must  refrain,  for  he  cannot  afford 
to  do  anything  which  will  injure  his  own  soul,  or  cause  his  brother  to 
stumble. 

There  was  another  phase  of  the  question  of  the  Christian's  relation 
to  idolatry  which  was  even  more  vital  to  Paul.  He  was  not  concerned 
about  the  mere  eating  of  meat  which  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice  to 


96  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

idols,  unless  the  one  who  ate  did  violence  to  his  own  conscience,  or 
injured  a  weaker  brother;  but  he  was  concerned  about  the  participa- 
tion in  idol  worship.  He  objected  to  a  Christian  having  anything  to 
do  with  idolatry  (I  Cor.  10:7,  14).  He  objected  to  his  participating 
in  a  feast  in  a  heathen  temple  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place, 
if  a  Christian  who  was  strong  enough  to  resist  the  influence  of  idolatry 
should  participate  in  a  feast  in  a  heathen  temple,  a  weaker  brother 
might  through  his  example  be  led  back  into  the  old  life.  He  objected 
in  the  second  place,  because  the  one  who  participates  in  a  feast  in  an 
idol  temple  enters  into  fellowship  with  the  demons.  Paul  held  that  an 
idol  is  nothing,  hence  meat  which  had  been  offered  to  idols  is  just  ordi- 
nary meat,  and  a  person  would  not  be  injured  by  eating  unless  he  par- 
ticipated in  the  sacrifice.  But  he  believed  there  were  demons  back  of 
these  idols,  and  the  sacrifices  in  the  temples  were  in  reality  sacrifices 
to  the  demons;  hence  Christians,  by  participating  in  a  feast  in  an  idol 
temple,  would  have  fellowship  with  the  demons  (I  Cor.  10:20). 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Conception  of  Idolatry 
a.  His  Jewish  training. 

j  The  Jews  after  the  time  of  the  captivity  were  hostile  to  idolatry, 
and  for  two  or  three  centuries  before  the  time  of  Paul  they  were  bitterly 
antagonistic  to  it.  The  making  of  these  idols  was  satirized  by  the 
Jewish  writers,  and  idolatry  was  opposed  by  the  masses  of  the  people. 
An  attempt  to  force  idolatry  upon  the  nation  led  to  the  Maccabean 
revolt.  The  persecutions  and  the  heroic  struggles  which  followed  this 
uprising  created  a  feeling  of  antagonism  to  idolatry  which  the  Pales- 
tinian Jews  could  never  forget.  Their  feeling  against  idolatry  was 
so  bitter  that  they  opposed  Pilate  when  he  brought  the  miUtary  ensigns 
from  Caesaiea  to  Jerusalem  (See  Ant.  XVIII :3.  1). 

The  Jews  beheved  an  idol  was  nothing.  The  manufacture  of  idols 
was  satirically  described  by  many  Old  Testament  writers,  and  the 
satire  was  even  more  pronounced  in  some  of  the  later  Jewish  writings. 
The  Jews  believed  their  God  alone  had  real  existence.  The  one  article 
of  their  creed  was:  ''Hear,  O  Israel;  The  Lord  our  God,  the  Lord  is  one" 
(Mk.  12:29).  While  the  Jews  believed  there  was  but  one  God,  the 
tendency  to  regard  the  gods  of  the  pagans  as  demons  became  pronounced 
\  during  the  Greek  period.  In  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  the  heathen 
gods  are  called  6ai)u6^ta,  and  in  the  Sibylline  books  and  in  the  book  of 
Enoch  the  heathen  deities  are  regarded  as  evil  spirits.^ 

*For  a  brief  discussion  of  this  subject  see  Article  "demon,"  H.  D.  B.,  Vol.  I, 
p.  592. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  97 

In  warning  the  Corinthians  against  idolatry,  Paul  used  the  Israel- 
ites as  an  illustration  (I  Cor.  10:7).  The  passage  which  he  quoted  was 
taken  from  Ex.  32:6,  and  it  describes  the  worship  of  the  molten  calf  / 
made  by  Aaron.  He  warned  the  Corinthians  not  to  be  idolaters  as  were  ' 
some  of  the  Israelites,  who  "sat  down  to  eat  and  drink,  and  rose  up  to 
play."  In  connection  with  this  warning,  Paul  mentioned  a  number  of 
experiences  of  the  Israelites  which  he  connected  with  their  idolatry; 
he  regarded  them  as  punishments  which  came  upon  them  in  consequence 
of  their  wrong-doing,  and  he  said  these  "happened  by  way  of  example 
and  were  written  for  our  admonition"  (I  Cor.  10:11).  Paul  felt  that 
these  experiences  of  the  IsraeHtes  had  a  significance  that  was  more 
far-reaching  than  mere  punishment  for  their  own  wrong-doings;  they 
were  happening  as  examples  for  others.  These  things  were  written  not 
merely  to  give  a  record  of  the  experiences  of  the  Israelites;  they  were 
written  for  the  admonition  of  the  Christians  "upon  whom  the  ends 
of  the  ages  are  come." 

Paul's  Jewish  training  and  his  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  played 
an  important  part  in  the  development  of  his  thought  about  the  relation 
of  the  Gentile  Christians  to  idol  worship.  It  gave  him  a  feeling  of 
contempt  for  the  idols  themselves,  but  a  feeling  of  fear  of  the  demons 
who  were  connected  with  idol  worship.  It  also  convinced  him  that 
God  punished  his  children  when  they  forsook  him  for  idolatry. 

b.  The  thought  of  the  Greek  world. 

It  was  commonly  beHeved  in  the  Mediterranean  world,  that  when  a 
feast  was  held  in  a  pagan  temple,  the  god  to  whom  the  temple  was  dedi- 
cated was  present  as  the  host,  and  those  v/ho  participated  in  the  feast 
entered  into  fellowship  with  the  deity  in  whose  honor  the  feast  was 
held.  Paul  must  have  been  familiar  with  these  ideas,  and  his  contact 
with  the  Greeks  had  perhaps  made  him  feel  that  there  was  some  reality 
back  of  this  pagan  worship.  His  Jewish  training  would  convince  him 
that  this  reality  was  not  deity,  and  the  explanation  which  found  expres- 
sion in  many  Jewish  writings  that  these  heathen  gods  were  demons, 
would  appeal  to  him.  Inasmuch  as  Paul  beUeved  the  demons  were 
connected  with  idol  worship,  he  urged  the  Gentile  Christians  not  to 
have  any  participation  in  idolatry,  for  he  did  not  want  them  to  have 
fellowship  with  demons. 

c.  Christian  experience. 

Experience  was  an  important  element  in  the  development  of  Paul's 
theory  of  the  relation  of  the  Gentile  Christians  to  idolatry.     His  Jewish 


98  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

training  and  his  contact  with  the  life  and  thought  of  the  Greeks  helped 
to  determine  what  idolatry  meant  to  him;  but  his  own  personal  experience 
and  the  purpose  he  sought  to  accompHsh  determined  his  instruction 
concerning  the  attitude  of  the  Gentiles  towards  idolatrous  customs. 
Some  have  thought  Paul  expressed  two  conflicting  opinions  about 
eating  meat  which  had  been  offered  to  idols,  and  that  these  two  opinions 
were  expressed  in  the  same  letter,  and  in  the  same  chapter.  In  the  first 
first  part  of  the  chapter,  he  seems  to  advise  against  the  eating  of  things 
sacrificed  to  idols  on  the  ground  that  the  Gentiles,  in  sacrificing  to 
idols,  in  reality  sacrifice  to  demons,  and  Christians,  by  eating  these 
things,  would  necessarily  have  fellowship  with  demons.  In  the  last 
part  of  the  chapter,  he  said  idols  are  nothing,  and  consequently  the 
meat  is  not  injured  by  having  been  offered  in  sacrifice;  hence  it  is  proper 
for  a  Christian  to  eat  of  it,  if  his  conscience  is  not  thus  offended,  or  if 
he  does  not  by  his  eating  cause  a  weaker  brother  to  stumble.  Paul 
made  a  distinction  between  participating  in  idol  worship  and  eating 
things  which  had  been  sacrificed  to  idols,  and  this  distinction  which 
he  made,  and  the  purpose  which  he  had  in  mind  in  his  letter,  explain 
the  apparent  discrepancy.  He  had  two  purposes  in  mind,  and  in  his 
effort  to  accompHsh  these,  he  seemed  to  contradict  himself.  He  was 
anxious  that  the  Christians  should  not  needlessly  offend  their  Gentile 
neighbors  by  their  narrowness.  He  wanted  them  to  have  influence  over 
their  friends,  and  he  knew  that  they  would  have  more  influence,  if  they 
enjoyed  as  far  as  possible  their  society.  He  knew  the  influence  of  the 
Christians  would  be  very  much  hampered,  if  they  broke  entirely  with 
the  community;  hence  he  told  them  to  buy  the  meat  sold  in  the  sham- 
bles, and  eat  the  meat  served  in  Gentile  homes  whither  they  had  gone 
as  guests,  providing  attention  had  not  been  called  to  the  fact  that 
it  had  been  offered  to  idols,  and  it  was  thus  made  a  matter  of  conscience. 
Paul  knew  that  it  would  be  difficult  for  Christians  to  live  in  a  heathen 
city,  if  they  were  to  hold  aloof  from  everything  which  had  any  connec- 
tion with  idolatry,  and  he  laid  down  a  broad  principle  to  guide  them  in 
their  various  relationships.  On  the  other  hand,  Paul  was  anxious  that 
the  Christians  should  keep  their  worship  pure  and  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  heathenism  from  which  they  had  broken  away.  He  realized 
that  if  these  Christians  participated  in  the  pagan  worship  at  all,  they 
would  be  in  danger  of  drifting  back  into  idolatry.  He  believed  Satan 
was  trying  to  defeat  the  work  of  God,  and  that  the  demons  were  putting 
forth  idol  worship  as  a  means  of  keeping  men  away  from  the  true  God. 
To  have  anything  to  do  with  idol  worship  was  to  enter  into  fellowship 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  99 

with  the  demons,  and  one  who  would  do  that  could  not  have  fellowship 
with  God. 

Paul  had  doubtless  eaten  meat  which  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice 
to  idols,  and  had  not  been  injured  by  it.  He  had  seen  others  eat  of 
this  meat,  and  some  of  them,  because  their  consciences  were  weak,  were 
injured,  while  others  who  had  no  questionings  in  their  minds  were  un- 
affected. Paul  had  seen  Gentile  Christians  go  to  the  heathen  temples, 
and  as  a  result,  they  lost  interest  in  Christianity  and  drifted  back  into 
paganism.  His  conclusion  was  the  result  of  experience,  and  he  had  no 
doubt  about  the  wisdom  of  his  advice. 

Not  only  was  Paul  guided  by  experience  in  advising  the  Corinthians, 
but  he  taught  that  they  were  to  be  guided  by  experience  in  carrying 
out  his  instructions.  A  man  was  to  be  directed  by  his  conscience  in 
determining  his  attitude  towards  eating  meat  when  it  concerned  himself 
alone.  He  should  not  do  anything  that  would  violate  his  own  conscience 
but  as  long  as  he  did  not  know  the  meat  had  been  offered  to  idols,  and 
there  was  no  offense  to  conscience,  there  could  be  no  harm  in  eating. 
Love  was  the  principle  which  was  to  guide  one  in  his  relation  to  others. 
The  Christian  should  follow  the  dictates  of  love,  and  do  the  things 
which  contribute  to  the  upbuilding  of  his  fellows.  He  should  be  more 
concerned  about  the  spiritual  welfare  of  his  brethren  than  he  is  about 
his  own  rights.  This  rule  applied  in  both  directions.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  weak  were  not  to  judge  the  strong  uncharitably  and  think  they  were 
sinful  because  they  ate;  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  strong  were  to 
forbear  for  the  sake  of  the  weak.  The  community  should  respect  the 
individual's  rights  and  grant  him  liberty  of  conscience,  but  the  law 
of  love  should  lead  him  to  be  ready  to  give  up  his  liberty  for  the  sake 
of  the  weaker  brother. 

Paul's  advice  on  the  question  of  eating  meats  seems  on  first  thought 
to  be  contrary  to  his  attitude  on  circumcision,  but  his  position  on  both 
questions  is  in  reahty  the  same.  He  refused  to  have  Titus  circumcised 
to  satisfy  the  prejudices  of  certain  Jews,  but  a  principle  was  involved, 
for  he  was  insisting  on  the  rights  of  the  Gentiles.  No  principle,  how- 
ever, was  involved  in  the  question  of  eating  meats  offered  to  idols, 
and  Paul's  position  was  the  opposite  of  the  one  he  had  taken  on  cir- 
cumcision. He  insisted  that  if  eating  would  offend,  then  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  Christian  to  refrain.  He  told  the  Corinthians  to  so  live  that 
they  might  make  their  lives  as  helpful  as  possible.  He  told  them  not 
to  permit  themselves  to  be  a  stumbHng-block  to  the  Jews  by  doing  things 
which  would  give  offense  to  them;  nor  to  put  a  stumbling-block  in  the 


100  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

way  of  Greeks  by  insisting  on  narrow  scruples  where  no  vital  principle 
is  involved;  nor  to  put  a  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  the  church  of 
God  by  seeking  personal  interest;  on  the  contrary  they  were  to  seek 
the  profit  of  the  many  (I  Cor.  10:32,  33).  The  purpose  which  Paul 
had  before  him,  the  winning  of  the  world  for  Christ  and  the  binding 
together  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  was  a  strong  factor  in  determining  his 
advice  on  the  questions  raised  by  idolatry.  He  wanted  the  Gentile 
Christians  to  do  the  things  which  would  help  him  most  in  carrying  out 
his  purpose. 

SUMMARY 

Paulas  Jewish  training  played  an  important  part  in  helping  him 
to  his  solution  of  the  problems  raised  by  the  estabUshment  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  Gentile  world.  It  influenced  him  both  negatively  and 
positively  in  reaching  his  conclusion  about  the  relation  of  the  law  to  the 
gospel.  His  zeal  for  the  law  and  its  failure  to  bring  peace  prepared  him 
for  the  time  when  he  would  forsake  it  as  a  means  of  justification,  while 
his  admiration  for  the  law  made  him  confident  that  it  must  have  had  a 
very  definite  place  in  the  working  out  of  God's  plan.  Paul's  Jewish 
training  was  an  important  factor  in  determining  his  answer  to  the 
question  about  the  Gentile  Christian's  relation  to  idolatry.  It  made 
him  abhor  idol  worship  and  feel  that  it  is  impossible  for  one  to  have  any 
connection  with  it  and  at  the  same  time  have  fellowship  with  God;  but 
it  made  him  look  upon  the  idols  themselves  with  contempt,  because  he 
knew  that  there  is  only  one  God. 

Paul  was  influenced  in  his  solution  of  these  problems  by  his  contact 
with  the  life  and  thought  of  the  Greeks.  His  observation  of  their 
religions  helped  to  prepare  him  so  that  he  would  be  willing  to  accept 
something  besides  law  as  the  means  of  justification,  and  it  also  convinced 
him  that  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Jews  would  make  no  appeal 
to  the  Gentiles.  His  Greek  environment  helped  to  determine  his  atti- 
tude towards  idol  worship.  His  observation  of  these  pagan  religions 
had  convinced  him  that  the  worshippers  did  enter  into  fellowship  with 
supernatural  powers,  but  he  knew  they  were  demons  and  not  deities; 
hence  he  insisted  that  Christians  should  have  no  connection  with  heathen 
worship. 

Paul  must  have  been  influenced  in  reaching  his  conclusion  about 
the  relation  of  the  law  to  the  gospel  by  the  life  and  thought  of  the  church 
into  which  he  entered.    The  realization  that   these   Christians  had 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 


101 


something  that  law  could  not  give  prepared  him  for  the  conviction  that 
law  is  not  essential  to  salvation. 

The  most  important  factors  in  determining  Paul's  solution  of  the 
problems  raised  by  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles  were 
his  own  personal  experience  and  the  purpose  which  he  sought  to  accom- 
pHsh.  His  own  personal  experience  and  his  observation  of  others  had 
convinced  him  that  the  law  cannot  justify,  and  that  faith  in  Christ 
not  only  makes  one  acceptable  to  God,  but  it  also  gives  him  victory. 
Paul's  contact  with  the  Greeks  had  convinced  him  that  they  would  i 
never  accept  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish  law,  and  he  realized  [ 
that  if  he  was  to  carry  out  his  purpose  of  winning  the  Gentile  world 
for  Christ,  it  would  be  necessary  to  free  them  from  the  obligation  of 
keeping  the  law.  His  desire  to  accomplish  the  great  purpose  to  which 
he  had  dedicated  his  life  led  him  to  assume  a  liberal  attitude  towards 
pagan  customs.  He  became  all  things  to  all  men  in  order  that  he  might 
win  them. 


CHAPTER  IV 
SUBJECTS  CONNECTED  WITH  THE  CHURCH 

Paul  sought  to  plant  new  churches  in  all  the  important  centers  of 
the  Mediterranean  world,  and  by  means  of  these  churches,  he  hoped  to 
evangelize  the  surrounding  territory.  When  he  was  with  these  churches 
in  person,  he  must  have  given  very  definite  instructions  concerning 
their  regulation  and  activities;  but  after  he  had  left  them,  new  sit- 
uations developed,  and  he  felt  the  need  of  giving  additional  instruction 
through  his  letters.  A  study  of  Paul's  teaching,  in  his  letters,  on  these 
various  subjects  will  throw  much  light  on  his  conception  of  authority. 

What  the  Church  is 
Statement  of  Paul's  Teaching 

Paul  sometimes  used  the  term  ''kingdom  of  God,"  but  he  used  the 
term  ''church"  more  frequently.  By  the  term  "church"  he  designated 
the  behevers  in  some  definite  locality,  as  Thessalonica  (I  Thess.  1:1), 
or  Corinth  (I  Cor.  1:1,  2).  Very  little  is  said  about  the  organization 
of  these  Christian  communities.  In  his  greeting  to  the  Philippians, 
he  mentioned  especially  the  bishops  and  deacons  (Phil.  1:1).  This 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  there  were  in  the  church  at  Phihppi  two 
groups  of  officers  which  bore  the  designation  "bishops"  and  "deacons." 
No  mention  is  made  of  these  officers  in  other  churches,  but  that  does 
not  prove  that  these  other  churches  did  not  have  them.  The  fact,  how- 
ever, that  Paul  wrote  directly  to  the  churches,  and  called  upon  them 
to  act,  would  indicate  that  he  regarded  these  officers,  if  the  churches  did 
have  them,  as  being  merely  their  servants.  Paul  did  not  outline  any 
scheme  of  organization  for  the  local  churches.  The  organization  was 
simple,  for  the  Spirit  would  see  to  it  that  things  were  done  in  order. 
Paul  was  not  building  up  a  great  organization  for  the  future,  for  he 
believed  the  parousia  was  near. 

Paul  referred  to  all  the  Christian  communities  in  a  given  province 
by  the  term  "churches";  as  for  example,  "the  churches  of  Asia"  (I 
Cor.  16:19),  the  churches  of  Macedonia"  (II  Cor.  8:1),  "the  churches 
of  Galatia"  (Gal.  1:2),  "the  churches  of  Judea"  (Gal.  1:22).  He  some- 
times used  the  term  "church"  in  the  singular  to  designate  the  whole 
body  of  behevers.  His  persecution  of  individual  Christians  was  inter- 
preted as  a  persecution  waged  against  the  church  (Gal.  1:13).    He  re- 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  103 

garded  the  believers  in  Christ  as  constituting  a  body  in  which  Christ's 
spirit  has  its  abode.  The  members  of  this  body  are  bound  together  in 
a  single  organism;  hence  the  welfare  of  one  is  the  welfare  of  all  (I  Cor. 
12:12  ff.).  He  regarded  the  church  as  a  unit,  bound  together  by  Christ, 
and  animated  by  his  spirit.  Paul  applied  the  term  "church"  to  any 
body  of  behevers  that  met  together  in  Christ's  name  for  worship,  and 
he  thought  of  all  those  believers  collectively  as  constituting  Christ's 
church.  There  is  no  reference  in  Paul's  writings  to  an  organization 
which  was  intended  to  unify  and  regulate  all  these  separate  communi- 
ties. He  believed  they  were  unified  and  controlled  by  the  spirit  of 
Christ.  Paul  thought  of  the  church  as  the  body  of  Christ,  and  he  be- 
lieved his  spirit  dwells  within  it  as  a  man's  spirit  dwells  in  his  body. 
The  local  church  had  certain  office-bearers  who  were  selected  by  the 
church  to  perform  definite  duties,  but  Paul  believed  that  in  addition  to 
these,  there  were  in  the  church  certain  men  whom  God  had  appointed 
for  peculiar  service.  These  men  had  special  gifts  which  qualified  them 
for  definite  service.  Paul  believed  these  gifts  had  been  divinely  be- 
stowed; hence  the  men  who  possessed  them  were  divinely  appointed 
(I  Cor.  12:28). 

Paul  did  not  feel  that  there  were  two  churches,  the  one  Jewish, 
and  the  other  Gentile;  he  regarded  them  all  as  constituting  the  one 
body.  The  churches  of  Judea  were  in  Christ  just  as  much  as  were  the 
churches  of  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  1:22;  I  Thess.  2:14).  He  called  them 
churches  of  God  (Gal.  1:13;  I  Cor.  15:9),  and  spoke  of  the  first  Chris- 
tians as  "brethren"  (I  Cor.  15:6),  and  "saints"  (I  Cor.  16:1;  Rom.  15: 
25).  He  held  up  the  churches  of  Judea  before  the  Thessalonians  as 
models  for  them  to  imitate  (I  Thess.  2:14,  15). 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Conception  of  the  Church 

a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

Paul  was  familiar  with  the  idea  of  the  church  before  he  came  in 
contact  with  the  Christian  movement.  The  Jews  had  their  religious 
community,  and  in  the  LXX,  this  was  designated  as  17  kKKkqcla.  These 
communities  meant  much  to  the  non-Palestinian  Jews,  and  throughout 
the  Mediterranean  world  they  were  much  like  the  Christian  churches 
of  the  earher  period.  In  fact,  they  were  so  much  alike  that  the  Romans 
did  not  at  first  distinguish  between  them.  The  Jewish  communities 
were  composed  of  those  who  were  called  out  from  the  rest  of  the  world 
by  their  faith  in  Jehovah,  and  they  were  bound  together  by  this  common 
faith  and  by  their  peculiar  rites  and  ceremonies.    They  had  their  syn- 


104  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

agogues  which  became  the  centers  of  Jewish  communities,  and  while 
the  individual  Jew  belonged  to  some  particular  community,  yet,  inas- 
much as  they  were  all  alike,  he  felt  at  home  in  any  of  them.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  community  who  belonged  to  the  same  synagogue  were  called 
"sons  of  the  synagogue."^  Inasmuch  as  the  Jew  could  feel  at  home 
in  any  of  these  synagogues  and  could  enter  into  their  worship,  he  must 
have  felt  that  he  and  the  rest  of  the  Jews  belonged  to  a  great  body 
which  had  been  called  out  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  that  they 
were  one  in  their  faith,  their  fellowship,  and  their  tasks.  Paul  inherited 
these  ideas,  and  he  must  have  been  influenced  by  them  in  the  develop- 
ment of  his  idea  of  the  church. 

The  local  synagogues  had  their  organization,  and  Paul  became 
familiar  with  that  by  the  training  of  his  early  years.  The  most  impor- 
tant officials  were  the  elders  of  the  synagogue,  and  in  the  non-Palestinian 
communities,  these  officers  were  distinct  from  the  civil  officials.  In 
addition  to  these,  each  synagogue  had  a  ruler  of  the  synagogue 
{apxi(Tvvdyo}yos) ,  the  receiver  of  alms,  and  the  minister  (uTrr/perT/s).^ 
This  organization  would  be  so  impressed  upon  Paul  that  he  would 
necessarily  be  influenced  by  it  in  the  organization  which  he  suggested 
for  the  churches  which  he  established.  The  local  synagogues  were  largely 
independent  in  their  management,  but  they  were  united  in  fellowship; 
and  it  is  significant  that  the  churches  under  Paul's  leadership  developed 
along  these  lines. 
b.  The  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

Associations  and  guilds  of  various  kinds  were  found  in  all  parts  of 
the  Mediterranean  world  of  Paul's  day.  Some  of  these  were  for  busi- 
ness and  for  fellowship,  and  some  of  them  were  for  purely  religious 
purposes.  Paul  must  have  been  acquainted  with  these,  and  some 
writers  think  they  furnished  the  model  for  the  organization  of  the  Pauline 
churches.^  The  organization  of  these  reUgious  associations  must  have 
been  similar  to  that  adopted  by  the  churches  which  were  established 
by  Paul,  for  the  terms  eTrtcr/coTrot  and  haKovoi  are  frequently  found  in 
inscriptions,  and  the  connection  plainly  indicates  that  they  had  a 
technical  reference  to  religious  officials.  These  pagan  societies  were 
designated  as  "corpora,"  and  there  may  have  been  some  connection 
between  that  designation  and  Paul's  reference  to  the  church  as  a  body. 

^  See  Article  "Synagogue,"  H.  D.  B.,  Vol.  IV,  p.  638. 

2  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  synagogue  see  Emil  Schiirer,  A  History  of  the 
Jewish  People,  Divis.     II,  Vol.  II,  pp.  44  ff, 

2  See  C.  F.  George  Hcinrici,  Der  erste  Brief  an  die  Korinther,  1880,  pp.  5  ff. 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  105 

The  one  who  had  not  been  initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  the  pagan 
cults  was  designated  as  an  iStcbrTys,  and  Paul  seems  to  have  used  that 
term  in  somewhat  the  same  sense  in  I  Cor.  14:16 

Paul  must  have  been  acquainted  with  these  reHgious  guilds  and 
with  their  organization,  and  it  is  very  probable  that  he  was  influenced 
by  them.  Inasmuch  as  the  churches  which  he  established  were  largely 
composed  of  Gentiles,  it  would  be  natural  for  him  to  adapt  these  churches 
to  Gentile  ways  of  thinking.  The  ideas  concerning  the  church  which  he 
inherited  from  his  Jewish  training  were  undoubtedly  modified  by  his 
Greek  environment. 

c.  The  life  and  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered. 

It  is  impossible  to  state  just  what  was  the  conception  of  the  church 
when  Paul  became  a  Christian,  or  what  its  organization  was;  but  from 
the  very  first  there  was  a  body  of  people  who  were  bound  together 
by  their  beUef  in  Jesus,  and  very  soon  the  theory  of  their  significance 
and  of  their  program  began  to  develop.  Paul  must  have  been  influenced 
by  this  body  of  believers,  as  it  was  when  he  became  a  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian movement.  There  must  have  been  some  development  in  the 
Palestinian  Church  before  Paul  began  his  aggressive  campaigns.  As 
time  passed  the  church  became  more  distinct  from  Judaism,  and  the 
Christians  had  a  more  definite  appreciation  of  their  identity  as  a  sepa- 
rate institution.  There  must  have  been  some  development  in  the  orga- 
nization of  these  communities,  and  they  would  naturally  develop  along 
Jewish  lines.  They  must  have  had  a  more  definite  idea  of  the  signi- 
ficance of  the  Christian  group  and  of  the  work  they  were  to  do.  Paul 
kept  in  close  touch  with  the  Jewish  section  of  the  church  after  he  began 
his  missionary  activities,  and  it  must  have  influenced  his  idea  of  the 
church  which  he  was  seeking  to  estabUsh  throughout  the  Mediterranean 
world. 

d.  His  own  personal  experience. 

Paul's  own  personal  experience  and  the  purpose  which  he  had  be- 
fore him  were  important  factors  in  the  development  of  his  thought  of 
the  church.  Paul's  aim  was  to  keep  the  church  united.  He  not  only 
desired  to  have  the  local  communities  bound  together  in  close  fellow- 
ship, but  he  was  anxious  to  have  that  fellowship  unite  all  communities. 
There  were  influences  that  were  dividing  local  churches,  like  the  one 
at  Corinth,  and  the  whole  church  was  in  danger  of  being  rent  over  the 
question  of  circumcision.  These  conditions  influenced  Paul  and  led 
him  to  emphasize  the  unity  of  the  church.  His  own  Christian  experience 
guided  him  in  the  development  of  his  idea  of  the  church  which  was  the 


106  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

basis  of  his  discussion  of  its  unity.  Paul  believed  he  was  united  to 
Christ  in  such  a  vital  manner  that  Christ  was  living  in  him,  and  he 
believed  all  other  Christians  should  be  united  to  Christ  in  the  same 
way.  If  all  were  thus  united  to  Christ,  they  would  be  united  to  each 
other,  and  they  would  then  constitute  a  great  body  in  which  Christ 
should  dwell. 

Experience  was  doubtless  a  prominent  factor  in  determining  the 
organization  of  the  Pauline  churches.  It  is  not  probable  that  the 
organization  was  static  in  all  the  Pauline  churches  during  all  the  period 
of  his  missionary  career,  and  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  it  was  uniform 
in  all  the  churches  at  any  given  tune.  It  was  a  development,  and 
the  particular  need  was  one  of  the  determining  influences  in  this  develop- 
ment. Paul  was  influenced  by  his  Jewish  training,  and  by  the  life  and 
thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world,  but  his  experience  was  the  factor 
which  determined  his  method  of  procedure.  He  used  that  method 
of  procedure  which  worked  best,  and  the  organization  of  the  churches 
which  were  under  his  leadership  was  a  development  to  meet  growing 
needs.  The  church  was  a  temple  in  which  the  spirit  of  Christ  dwelt, 
and  they  trusted  the  divine  spirit  to  guide  them  into  all  truth. 

The  Ordinances  of  the  Church 
The  two  ordinances,  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  discussed 
in  the  Pauline  writings,  and  yet  one  is  surprised  in  reading  these  letters 
to  find  how  little  teaching  there  is  on  these  subjects.  Undoubtedly 
much  teaching  was  given  when  he  was  with  these  churches  in  person, 
and  what  we  have  in  his  letters  was  for  the  purpose  of  illustration, 
or  to  correct  abuses. 

Baptism 
a.  What  it  meant  for  Paul. 

Paul  had  Uttle  to  say  about  baptism,  but  his  few  statements  are 
very  significant.  Inasmuch  as  he  did  not  give  any  direct  teaching  on 
the  subject  of  baptism,  his  position  must  be  inferred  from  his  incidental 
references.  It  is  evident  from  the  statements  which  he  made  that 
all  the  members  of  the  Pauline  churches  had  been  baptized.  In  his 
criticism  of  those  in  Corinth  who  were  calling  themselves  after  Cephas, 
or  ApoUos,  or  himself,  he  asked  if  they  had  been  baptized  into  the 
name  of  Paul  (I  Cor.  1:13),  and  this  would  indicate  that  they  had  been 
baptized  into  some  other  name.  In  emphasizing  the  unity  of  the 
church,  he  likened  it  to  the  human  body,  and  the  individual  Christians 
were  regarded  as  constituting  the  members  of  this  body  (I  Cor.  12:12  ff.). 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  107 

Paul  said  these  different  members  were  all  baptized  in  one  spirit  into 
one  body  (I  Cor.  12:13).  It  is  very  evident  that  this  refers  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christian  baptism."*  Paul  affirmed  that  the  Galatians,  when 
they  started  in  the  Christian  life,  obligated  themselves  to  Christ  rather 
than  to  the  law,  and  he  referred  to  their  baptism  as  an  indication  of 
that  fact  (Gal.  3:27).  His  statement  would  imply  that  they  had  all 
been  baptized,  and  that  they  had  been  baptized  into  the  name  of  Christ: 
"For  as  many  of  youas  were  baptized  into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ." 
Paul  urged  the  Roman  Christians  not  to  continue  in  sin,  inasmuch  as 
they  had  died  to  sin,  and  he  pointed  to  their  baptism  as  an  indication 
of  that  death  (Rom.  6:3,  4).  This  passage  would  seem  to  infer  that  all 
who  were  regarded  as  Christians  had  been  baptized,  and  that  the  bap- 
tism which  had  been  administered  to  them  was  in  the  nature  of  a  burial 
and  resurrection.  It  seems  evident  that  all  the  members  of  the  Chris- 
tian groups  in  Rome,  Corinth,  and  Galatia  had  been  baptized,  and  it 
is  very  probable  that  the  same  condition  prevailed  in  all  the  other  Pauline 
churches. 

It  is  more  difficult  to  determine  the  significance  of  baptism  for 
Paul,  than  it  is  to  determine  its  existence  in  the  churches  founded  by 
him.  There  are  few  subjects  in  Pauline  thought  concerning  which 
scholars  have  differed  more  widely  than  the  one  relating  to  the  signi- 
ficance of  baptism.  Paul  did  not  regard  baptism  as  the  fundamental 
thing  in  his  Work.  His  great  task  was  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
and  the  administering  of  baptism  was  a  mere  incident  in  his  mission. 
He  scarcely  remembered  the  names  of  the  ones  whom  he  had  baptized 
in  Corinth,  and  he  apparently  was  not  much  concerned  whether  he  or 
others  had  baptized  the  Corinthians,  for  Christ  had  sent  him  to  preach 
the  gospel,  and  not  to  baptize.  It  would  be  misleading,  however,  to 
say  Paul  was  not  concerned  about  baptism,  for  he  believed  it  was  of 
vital  importance.  He  believed  it  had  a  significance  for  the  community, 
for  it  was  the  common  rite  which  bound  the  members  into  one  body 
(I  Cor.  12:13).  The  Jew  and  the  Greek,  the  bond  and  the  free,  were 
all  baptized  into  one  body.  Barriers  which  had  hitherto  been  insur- 
mountable were  broken  down,  and  through  the  rite  of  baptism  they  were 
bound  together,  and  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one  spirit. 

The  phase  of  baptism  that  was  most  important  in  Paul's  thinking 
was  its  significance  for  the  individual.  He  beheved  the  individual 
was  baptized  into  Christ  Jesus,  and  through  this  ordinance  he  was 

*  For  a  discussion  of  this  point  see  Int.  Grit.  Com. 


108  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

brought  into  his  death.  Many  writers  have  interpreted  Paul's  concep- 
tion of  baptism  as  being  merely  symbolic.  They  maintain  that  he 
regarded  baptism  as  symbolizing  the  union  with  Christ  which  is  accom- 
phshed  through  faith.^  These  writers  hold  that  baptism  had  a  moral 
import  for  Paul,  because  he  believed  it  represented  in  a  figurative 
manner  that  the  one  who  was  being  baptized  had  died,  and  he  was  thus 
being  buried  and  resurrected  with  Christ.  They  hold  that  baptism 
symbolised  for  Paul  a  moral  transformation;  the  one  who  was  being 
baptized  had  already  died  to  sin  and  had  been  raised  to  holiness,  and 
thus  it  represented  in  an  outward  from  that  which  had  already  taken 
place  in  the  life.^  The  symbolic  significance  of  baptism  was  prominent 
in  Paul's  thinking.  It  did  undoubtedly  symbolize  the  beUever's  death 
to  sin  and  resurrection  to  the  new  life.  It  committed  the  individual 
to  Christ,  as  the  passage  through  the  Red  Sea  committed  the  Israelites 
to  the  leadership  of  Moses  (I  Cor.  10:2.). 

A  disinterested  interpretation  of  Paul's  writings,  however,  must 
give  baptism  a  more  essential  place  than  that  of  a  mere  symbolism. 
While  it  had  symbolic  significance,  it  had  intrinsic  value  within  itself. 
According  to  Gal.  3:27,  it  is  in  the  act  of  baptism  that  individuals  are 
brought  into  Christ  {els  xpto-Tov),  and  those  who  are  baptized  into  Christ 
put  on  Christ  {xpkttov  kvedvaaade) .  According  to  Romans  (6:3,  4),  it 
is  through  baptism,  that  individuals  are  brought  into  the  death  of 
Christ  {els  rdv  Skvarov  avTov  e^aTTTLcrdrifxev) ,  and  as  a  result  of  having 
been  buried  with  Christ  through  baptism  into  his  death,  they  shall  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  In  one  of  the  Corinthian  letters  (I  Cor.  12:13), 
Paul  evidently  connected  the  reception  of  the  Spirit  with  baptism.  Bap- 
tism not  only  brought  together  the  discordant  elements  into  one  body, 
but  in  this  rite  they  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit  (Trdi^res  ev  irveufxa 
eTOTladrifiev).''    In  this  same  letter  (I  Cor.  15:29)  Paul  referred  to  their 

6  George  B.  Stevens  (The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  1910,  pp.  461  f.)  holds 
that  baptism  was  important  to  Paul  because  of  its  spiritual  significance.  He  said: 
"It  is  not  baptism  considered  as  an  outward  rite,  but  baptism  considered  in  its  inner 
import,  which  portrays  this  grafting  into  Christ. " 

« H.  A.  A.  Kennedy  (Si.  Paul  and  the  Mystery  Religions,  1913,  p.  251)  says  it  is 
absurd  to  think  Paul  associated  the  reception  of  the  Spirit  with  baptism,  for  if  he  had 
done  so,  he  would  have  placed  more  stress  upon  it.  He  thinks  baptism  had  a  double 
significance  for  Paul.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was  the  completion  of  the  process  of  enter- 
ing into  Christ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  "the  real  recognition  and  assurance  of 
the  new  life,  which  are  quickened  in  the  soul  by  the  baptismal  experience. " 

'  H.  A.  A.  Kennedy  (5^.  Paul  and  the  Mystery  Religions,  1913,  p.  239)  who  places 
the  emphasis  on  the  symboUc  significance  of  baptism,  admits  that  this  passage  con- 
nects the  reception  of  the  Spirit  with  baptism. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  109 

custom  of  baptizing  for  the  dead.  Many  interpretations  of  this  pas- 
sage have  been  given,  but  it  seems  almost  certain  that  it  refers  to  a 
custom,  which  must  have  been  practiced  at  Corinth,  and  which  may 
have  been  practiced  elsewhere  to  some  extent,  of  receiving  baptism 
in  behalf  of  departed  friends  in  hope  that  they  would  thus  share  in  the 
resurrection  of  Christ.^  Paul  did  not  give  his  sanction  to  this  custom, 
but  inasmuch  as  he  sought  to  correct  the  errors  of  the  Corinthian  Church, 
the  fact  that  he  referred  to  it  and  did  not  condemn  it  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  he  did  not  disapprove  of  it.  Taking  all  these  things  into 
consideration,  it  seems  almost  certain  that  Paul  regarded  baptism,  not 
only  as  a  symbol,  but  as  having  real  value  in  itself.  He  regarded  it  as 
a  means  by  which  Christ  is  imparted  to  men  and  through  which  they 
are  made  partakers  of  the  divine  benefits. 
b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  baptism. 

(a)  His  Jewish  training. 

The  Jews  had  numerous  washings  which  were  associated  with  the 
idea  of  cleansing.  The  priests  were  required  to  wash  in  the  laver 
before  they  ministered  in  the  temple.  The  Pharisees  practiced  a  cere- 
monial washing  before  they  ate,  and  this  was  referred  to  as  a  baptism. 
The  Pharisee  who  had  invited  Jesus  to  dine  with  him  "marveled  that 
he  had  not  first  bathed  himself  before  dinner"  (Lk  11 :38)  and  the  term 
used  is  the  same  as  the  one  which  is  elsewhere  translated  *' baptize" 
{k^aTTLadrj) .  The  Pharisees  had  the  custom  of  the  ''baptizings  of 
cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels"  (Mk  7:4)  It  seems  quite  probable 
that  the  Jews  performed  a  baptismal  rite  for  the  purpose  of  initiating 
a  proselyte  into  the  Jewish  community.  Paul  was  familiar  with  all 
these  ceremonies,  and  he  was  influenced  b)^  them  in  the  formation  of 
his  conception  of  Christian  baptism 

(b)  The  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

Paul's  notion  of  ceremonialism  in  religion  must  be  studied  in  con- 
nection with  the  thought  of  the  world  in  which  he  lived  and  labored. 
The  mystery-cults  differed  in  many  particulars,  but  they  agreed  in 
offering  present  and  future  happiness  to  those  who  were  initiated  into 
fellowship  with  the  deity,  and  a  sacred  bath  constituted  a  part  of  this 
initiation.  While  there  is  no  indication  that  the  name  of  the  deity 
was  pronounced  when  this  lustration  was  performed,  yet  the  very  char- 
acter of  the  rite  impHed  a  confession  of  the  deity  on  the  part  of  the 
one  initiated.® 

8  See  Int.  Crit.  Com. 

"Paul  Schweitzer  {Geschichte  der  Paulinischen  Forschung,  1911,  pp.  162  f.;  Eng. 
trans.  1912,  p.  208),  who  does  not  believe  Greek  thought  influenced  Paul  in  his  idea 


no  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

It  is  impossible  to  state  with  absolute  certainty  the  teaching  of 
the  mystery-religions  about  the  sacred  bath,  but  most  of  those  who 
have  made  a  special  study  of  these  cults  agree  on  several  important 
points.  They  agree  that  many  of  them  had  a  sacred  lustration,  either 
of  water  or  of  blood,  and  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  initiation  ceremony. 
They  agree  that  the  purpose  of  this  bath  was  to  bring  the  initiate  into 
fellowship  with  the  god,  who  had  died  and  had  been  raised  from  the 
dead,  in  order  that  he  might  be  made  the  possessor  of  immortality. 
They  agree  that  this  initiation  brought  the  individual  into  such  close 
touch  with  the  deity  that  the  deity  entered  into  him  and  took  posses- 
sion of  him.  They  are  also  agreed  that  these  mystery-cults  were  quite 
widely  disseminated  throughout  the  Mediterranean  world  before  the 
time  of  Paul.  Undoubtedly  many  who  became  Christians  under 
the  labors  of  Paul  had  passed  through  these  initiatory  rites,  and  they 
necessarily  carried  some  of  their  old  ideas  over  into  their  Christian 
experience.  It  is  natural  that  Paul  should  have  used  a  terminology 
which  would  be  famiUar  to  the  Gentile  Christians,  but  he  was  undoubt- 
edly influenced  in  his  conception  of  the  significance  of  the  rite,  as  well 
as  in  his  terminology.  When  the  lustrations  of  the  mystery-religions 
are  compared  with  Paul's  idea  of  baptism,  many  striking  differences 
are  noted,  but  the  main  purpose  is  the  same  in  either  case.  Just  as 
the  initiate  into  the  mystery-cult  was  brought  into  fellowship  with 
the  deity  through  the  divine  bath,  so  the  individual  through  Christian 
baptism  is  brought  into  fellowship  with  Christ. 

There  has  been  much  discussion  about  the  relation  of  Paul's  state- 
ment about  baptizing  for  the  dead  (I  Cor.  15 :29)  to  the  mystery-religions. 
A  papyrus  attests  a  baptism  of  the  dead.  The  dead  man  is  represented 
as  being  between  two  gods,  and  they  administer  to  him,  rather  than  to 
a  substitute,  the  sacred  bath.^^  Some  writers  beheve  the  mystery- 
religions  furnish  examples  of  the  substitution  of  one  person  for  another 
in  the  sacred  ablution,  and  that  the  condition  in  Corinth  to  which  Paul 
referred  was   derived  from   these   pagan   cults." 


of  baptism,  admits  that  the  mystery-cults  had  a  baptismal  rite,  and  that  this  rit 
implied  confession  of  the  deity  on  the  part  of  the  one  who  was  being  initiated. 

^°  See  R.  Reitzenstein,  Die  hellenisHschen  Mysterienreligionen,  1910,  p.  84. 

"Percy  Gardner  {The  Religious  Experience  of  Si.  Paul,  1911,  p.  110)  says:  "I^ 
appears  also  that  in  the  TauroboUmn  substitution  of  one  person  for  another 
allowed,  one  man  receiving  the  benefit  of  the  bath  of  another." 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  HI 

It  seems  almost  certain  that  the  Greek  world  contributed  impor- 
tant elements  to  Paul's  doctrine  of  Christian  baptism,  but  the  prac- 
tice of  these  mystery-cults  would  not  be  sufficient  of  themselves  to 
explain  his  conception.  They  contributed  their  part  along  with  other 
influences. 

(c)  The  thought  of  the  primitive  church. 

We  do  not  know  just  what  notion  of  baptism  Paul  received  from 
the  primitive  church.  The  rite  was  undoubtedly  administered  by  the 
church  from  the  very  beginning,  and  Paul  must  have  been  baptized 
according  to  the  regulation  of  the  church,  but  it  is  impossible  to  state 
just  what  it  meant  to  him  when  he  was  baptized.  The  Book  of  Acts 
gives  but  a  brief  account  of  the  life  and  thought  of  the  early  church, 
and  as  it  was  written  many  years  after  the  beginning  of  the  church,  it 
is  impossible  to  tell  just  how  much  this  account  was  modified  by  later 
thought.  According  to  the  account  in  the  first  part  of  Acts,  baptism 
was  more  than  a  formal  act;  it  had  a  vital  connection  with  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  (Acts  2:38).  But  the  significance  of  baptism,  as  it  is  indi- 
cated in  the  first  part  of  Acts,  is  very  different  from  what  it  was  for 
Paul. 

(d)  His  own  personal  experience. 

Although  Paul  received  the  rite  of  baptism  from  the  primitive 
church,  and  his  Jewish  training  had  prepared  him  for  its  reception,  and 
his  Greek  environment  had  given  him  ideas  which  would  lead  him  to 
put  a  new  meaning  into  it,  yet  his  own  personal  experience  was  an  impor- 
tant factor  in  the  development  of  the  significance  of  this  Christian  ordi- 
nance. Paul  transformed  the  primitive  conception  of  baptism  into 
the  mystical  idea  of  dying  with  Christ  and  arising  to  a  new  life  with 
him,  and  while  Greek  thought  suggested  it  to  him,  his  doctrine  was 
worked  out  in  his  own  experience.  His  argument  in  Galatians  and 
Romans  was  to  the  effect  that  a  man  is  justified  and  enters  into  fellow- 
ship with  God  through  faith  in  Christ,  and  his  teaching  on  baptism 
must  be  understood  in  the  light  of  his  discussion  of  faith. 

It  might  seem  that  Paul  had  two  conceptions  of  salvation,  the  one 
being  ethical  and  the  result  of  faith,  and  the  other  being  mystical  and 
the  result  of  sacraments,  and  that  these  two  were  antagonistic  to  each 
other.  It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  these  two  conceptions 
had  been  blended  in  Paul's  thinking,  and  the  one  phase  was  the  result 
of  his  contact  with  the  thought  of  the  Greeks,  and  the  other  resulted 
from  his  own  Christian  experience.  The  one  to  whom  baptism  is 
administered  has  faith  in  Christ,  and  this  faith,  accompanied  by  the 


112  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

mystic  rite,  brings  him  into  fellowship  with  his  Lord.  Faith  in  a  cruci- 
fied and  risen  Christ  was  presupposed  as  the  condition  of  receiving 
the  initiatory  rite.  It  was  on  account  of  his  faith  that  the  individual 
was  permitted  to  receive  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  these  together  brought 
him  into  Christ,  and  made  him  a  partaker  of  the  divine  Spirit.  In  the 
mystery-cults  the  emphasis  was  placed  on  the  initiatory  rite,  but  Paul 
placed  the  stress  on  faith,  and  his  own  experience  would  have  made  it 
impossible  for  him  to  have  done  otherwise. 

Paul  made  one  reference  to  baptism  in  connection  with  Old  Testa- 
ment history.  In  his  letter  to  the  Corinthians  he  was  arguing  that 
the  people  who  had  been  baptized  and  had  evidence  of  God's  approval 
might,  because  of  disobedience  and  rebellion,  be  rejected  by  him;  and 
he  referred  to  the  experience  of  Israel  as  an  illustration  of  that  fact. 
Although  they  "were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea"  (I  Cor.  10:2),  yet  "they  were  overthrown  in  the  wilderness"  (I  Cor. 
10:5).  His  use  of  baptism  in  this  connection  would  indicate  that  he 
received  his  ideas  from  other  sources,  and  then  read  them  back  into 
the  Old  Testament.  He  drew  a  comparison  between  baptism  into  Christ 
and  into  Moses.  While  it  is  not  expressed  in  his  illustration,  yet  it 
is  impHed  that  as  the  Christians  were  united  to  Christ  by  baptism, 
and  thus  obtained  salvation,  so  the  Israelites  obtained  salvation  from 
Egypt  by  being  united  to  Moses  by  a  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea.  Paul  received  the  rite  of  baptism  from  the  primitive  church,  but 
its  significance  for  him  was  derived  from  the  Greek  rehgions  and  from 
his  own  personal  experience,  and  he  then  read  these  conceptions  back 
into  the  Old  Testament,  and  used  it  to  make  his  doctrine  effective. 

The  Lord's  Supper 

a.  What  it  meant  for  Paul. 

Paul  had  very  Httle  to  say  in  his  writings  about  the  Lord's  Supper, 
but  what  he  did  say  is  important.  There  are  some  incidental  references 
which  are  significant,  but  the  fullest  discussion  is  in  I  Cor.  11:17-34. 
Paul  had  evidently  given  the  Corinthians  definite  instructions  con- 
cerning the  significance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  manner  in  which 
they  should  observe  it,  when  he  was  with  them,  but  they  had  failed 
to  live  up  to  his  instructions.  They  did  not  come  together  in  the 
right  spirit,  for  there  were  divisions  among  them.  The  Lord's  Supper 
was  intended  to  be  a  fellowship-meal,  but  the  Corinthians,  because 
of  the  manner  in  which  they  were  celebrating  it,  had  made  it  anything 
but  that.    They  did  not  wait  for  one  another  in  their  partaking,  but 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  113 

some  ate  and  drank  to  excess  before  the  others  had  had  a  chance,  and 
the  result  was  that  some  were  hungry  and  others  were  drunken.  Paul 
declared  that  when  they  partook  in  this  selfish  spirit  it  was  not  possi- 
ble for  them  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  and  because  they  had  eaten 
without  discerning  the  Lord's  body,  many  of  them  were  weak  and 
sickly,  and  not  a  few  of  them  had  died.  We  do  not  know  the  circum- 
stances to  which  Paul  referred,  but  it  is  very  probable  that  some  malady 
had  swept  over  the  church,  and  he  attributed  this  to  their  laxity  in 
regard  to  the  sacred  meal.  He  may  have  believed  there  was  some 
magical  influence  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  as  a  consequence  those  who 
partook  of  it  unworthily  suffered  physical  ills,  or  he  may  have  regarded 
this  sickness  and  death  in  the  church  as  a  divine  punishment,  inflicted 
on  them  because  of  their  lack  of  reverence  for  divine  things,  as  the 
Israelites  were  punished  because  of  their  disregard  for  God's  laws  (See 
I  Cor.  10:10-13).  According  to  I  Cor.  11:17-34,  the  main  purpose  for 
their  coming  together  should  have  been  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  the  object  of  this  celebration  was  not  merely  to  remember  Christ; 
it  was  to  proclaim  his  death  "till  he  come."  This  celebration  had  a 
significance  for  the  individual  which  was  of  more  vital  concern  than 
either  of  these,  for  it  was  a  partaking  of  the  Lord's  body.  Those  who 
celebrated  the  Lord's  Supper  were  not  to  partake  of  the  bread  to  sat- 
isfy their  hunger,  for  if  they  were  hungry,  they  were  to  eat  at  home. 
When  they  partook  of  the  sacred  meal,  they  were  to  discriminate  be- 
tween that  bread  and  other  bread,  for  that  was  the  Lord's  body. 

In  I  Cor.  10:14-22,  Paul  used  the  Lord's  Supper  as  an  illustration, 
and  the  use  which  he  made  of  it  would  indicate  that  he  regarded  it  as 
being  more  than  a  mere  memorial  institution.  He  was  arguing  against 
participation  in  sacrifice  to  idols  on  the  ground  that  this  would  bring 
them  into  communion  with  demons,  and  he  used  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  prove  his  argument.  He  said  the  cup  is  a  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  the  bread  is  a  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ.  The 
word  translated  "communion"  is  Kotvcovia,  and  this  means  fellowship, 
participation,  or  intercourse.  Paul  believed  that  one  has  fellowship 
with  the  sufferings  of  Christ  when  he  partakes  of  the  bread  and  wine. 
He  regarded  the  Lord's  Supper  as  being  something  more  than  a  memorial 
of  Christ,  or  a  proclamation  of  his  death;  it  was  a  fellowship  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  to  partake  without  discerning  the  Lord's 
body  would  bring  condemnation, 
b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 


114  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

(a)  His  Jewish  training. 

There  were  some  Jewish  customs  which  helped  to  prepare  Paul  for 
an  appreciation  of  the  sacred  meal  of  the  Christians.  Among  the  Jews, 
eating  and  drinking  together  was  a  means  of  producing  fellowship. 
When  one  came  to  the  table  of  his  host,  he  not  only  had  his  protection, 
but  he  also  had  his  friendship,  and  because  of  the  common  meal,  they 
had  fellowship  with  each  other.  The  Jews  had  the  custom  of  partaking 
of  their  sacrifices,  and  while  this  was  quite  different  from  the  sacred 
meal  of  the  Christians,  it  undoubtedly  contributed  something  to  Paul's 
understanding  of  the  Christian  institution.  The  Jew's  celebration  of 
the  Passover,  which  commemorated  their  deliverance  from  bondage, 
helped  to  prepare  Paul  for  the  celebration  of  the  Christian  feast,  which 
commemorated  a  more  important  deliverance.  These  customs  influ- 
enced Paul  only  indirectly,  and  when  he  used  the  Old  Testament  to 
illustrate  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  was  other  incidents  to  which  he  referred; 
but  the  custom  of  eating  together  not  only  emphasized  the  idea  of 
fellowship,  but  as  in  the  case  of  the  feasts,  it  had  a  deeper  significance. 

(b)  The  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

Recent  investigations  have  thrown  much  light  upon  the  ceremoni- 
alism of  the  world  in  which  Paul  lived,  and  this  must  be  taken  into 
account  in  any  serious  attempt  to  understand  Paul's  thinking.  Attis 
worship,  which  had  penetrated  the  Roman  empire  two  centuries  before 
the  time  of  Paul,  had  the  *' agape"  in  which  the  candidates  partook  of 
food  and  drink.  This  was  a  part  of  the  initiation  into  the  mysteries  of 
Attis,  and  by  means  of  it,  the  initiates  became  partakers  of  the  higher 
life.  The  password  into  the  Eleusinian  mysteries  seems  to  have  been: 
"I  fasted,  I  drank  the  barley-drink,  I  took  from  the  sacred  chest;  having 
tasted  I  placed  them  into  the  basket  and  again  from  the  basket  into 
the  chest."  This  ritual  seems  to  imply  that  the  initiate,  through 
eating  and  drinking,  was  brought  into  communion  with  the  deity,  and 
was  thus  made  a  partaker  in  the  triumph  over  death.^^  j^  the  Dionysus 
cult,  it  was  believed  that  one  could  participate  in  the  life  of  the  god  by 
eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of  the  victim  in  which  the  god 
was  supposed  to  be  incarnate.  Many  of  the  mystery-reUgions  had  a 
sacred  meal.  This  meal  was  sometimes  held  in  the  temple  of  the  god, 
and  it  was  believed  that  the  god  was  present  as  host,  and  that  those 
who  ate  had  fellowship  with  him.  An  invitation  to  one  of  those  feasts 
is  contained  in  Pap.  Oxyr.,  1,  110:  "Chairemon  invites  you  to  a  dinner 

^2  For  a  discussion  of  this  point  see  "Shirley  Jackson  Case,"  The  Evolution  of 
Early  Christianity,  1914,  p.  294. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  115 

at  the  table  of  the  Lord  Serapis  in  the  Serapaeum  to-morrow,  i.e.,  the 
15th." 

Some  writers  think  that  Paul  was  influenced  very  little,  if  at  all, 
in  his  conception  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  the  sacred  meals  of  the  pa- 
gans. Others  go  to  the  opposite  extreme  and  insist  that  Paul  instituted 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  it  was  pagan  influences  that  led  him  to  do 
it.  They  hold  that  when  Paul  gave  the  Christians  the  sacred  meal,  he 
realized  that  he  was  giving  them  something  new;  hence  he  claimed  a 
divine  revelation  for  it.  They  maintain  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
the  outgrowth  of  a  need.  The  pagans  had  their  sacred  meals,  and  the 
Christians,  to  make  headway  in  this  environment,  had  to  have  a  sub- 
stitute; hence  the  table  of  the  Lord  was  instituted  to  compete  with  the 
table  of  demons.^^ 

Paul  was  undoubtedly  influenced,  by  the  thought  of  the  Greeks,  in 
his  conception  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  the  theory  which  he  presented 
was  very  different  from  that  of  the  Greek  mysteries.  A  careful  com- 
parison of  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  the  sacred  meals 
of  the  mystery-cults  reveals  more  differences  than  similarities.  The 
Greek  Mysteries  contributed  important  elements  to  Paul's  thought,  but 
these  elements  were  worked  over  under  other  influences,  and  the  result 
was  something  very  different  from  the  pagan  feasts.^^ 
(c)  The  life  and  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered. 

In  thie  fullest  discussion  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  Paul  gave  he 
made  the  statement  that  he  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  he  delivered 
unto  them.  As  pointed  out  above,  some  writers  hold  that  Paul  was 
making  the  claim  that  he  did  not  receive  his  account  of  the  instituting 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  from  historical  tradition,  but  that  it  came  to  him 
through  a  divine  revelation;  and  they  insist  that  a  study  of  the  whole 
subject  plainly  demonstrates  the  truthfulness  of  his  claim.  Some 
writers  hold  that  Paul  originated  the  feast,  while  others  believe  he 
changed  the  significance  of  it  so  that  it  was  virtually  a  new  institution.^^ 

^3  For  a  discussion  of  this  position  see  F.  C.  Conybeare,  Myth,  Magic  and  Morals, 
1910,  pp.  251  ff. 

1*  Percy  Gardner  {The  Religious  Experiences  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  p.  113)  holds  that 
the  feasts  of  communion  with  departed  heroes  and  ancestors  furnish  the  closest  parallel 
to  Paul's  conception  of  communion  that  we  have.  He  says:  "The  ancestor  was 
invisibly  present  as  was  the  Master  among  the  Christians." 

^5  O.  Pfleiderer  (Das  Urchristenthum,  I  Band.,  p.  77)  holds  that  Paul  meant  to 
affirm  that  the  knowledge  which  he  was  imparting  came  directly  from  Christ,  and  he 
thinks  Paul's  sense  of  spiritual  communion  was  so  strong  that  the  impulses  which  were 
given  him  by  the  Spirit  were  more  authoritative  for  him  than  human  traditions. 


116  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Those  who  believe  Paul  gave  the  Lord's  Supper  to  the  church  find 
this  a  very  convenient  passage,  but  it  is  doubtful  whether  Paul  meant  to 
assert  anything  concerning  the  source  from  which  he  had  received  his 
knowledge  of  the  institution.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  reason  for 
assuming  that  he  had  received  his  information  by  supernatural  means. 
The  thing  of  importance  was,  not  the  method  of  communication,  but  the 
source  from  which  the  communication  came,  and  in  some  manner  Paul 
had  received  this  from  Christ. 

Regardless  of  what  one's  theory  concerning  the  special  revelation 
may  be,  it  can  be  assumed  that  the  primitive  church  had  a  sacred  meal 
of  some  sort,  and  that  Paul  received  that  as  a  part  of  the  Ufe  of  the 
church  into  which  he  entered.  It  is  impossible  to  state  just  what  the 
significance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was,  as  it  was  celebrated  in  the  early 
church,  but  it  was  undoubtedly  quite  different  from  what  it  later  became 
in  Paul's  thinking.  But  the  institution,  as  it  was  celebrated  by  the 
church  into  which  he  entered,  became  the  basis  of  his  doctrine,  and 
this  was  developed  under  other  influences, 
(d)  His  own  personal  experience. 

Paul  received  from  his  Jewish  training  the  notion  that  fellowship 
is  associated  with  eating  and  drinking,  and  because  of  his  Jewish  inheri- 
tance, it  was  natural  for  him  to  connect  a  sacred  meal  with  the  com- 
memoration of  a  great  event.  From  his  contact  with  the  Greek  world, 
he  received  the  idea  of  the  meal  being  a  sacrament.  Because  of  this 
Greek  environment  it  was  natural  for  him  to  regard  the  emblems  as 
sacred,  and  as  containing  magical  efficacy;  and  it  was  also  natural 
for  him  to  regard  the  meal  as  a  means  of  bringing  the  individual  into 
fellowship  with  Christ,  in  whose  honor  it  was  being  celebrated.  From 
the  primitive  Christians  he  received  the  meal  as  it  was  being  celebrated 
by  the  church  into  which  he  entered,  but  he  interpreted  it  in  the  fight 
of  his  Jewish  training,  and  his  Greek  environment,  and  his  own  Christian 
experience,  and  this  last  was  fundamental  for  him. 

Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  cannot  be  explained  apart 
from  his  own  Christian  experience.    He  was  not  a  sacramentarian  in  his 

Percy  Gardner  {The  Religious  Experiences  of  St.  Paul,  p.  Ill)  thinks  Paul  regarded 
his  own  version  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  a  revelation  from  Christ.  He  thinks  the 
primitive  church  before  the  time  of  Paul  had  the  custom  of  breaking  bread  at  a  com- 
mon meal,  which  was  in  some  way  connected  with  Jesus'  last  supper  with  his  disciples, 
but  that  Paul's  conception  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  so  different  that  he  did  not  regard 
it  as  a  rite  which  he  had  received  from  the  original  apostles,  but  he  believed  he  had 
received  it  as  a  direct  revelation  from  Christ, 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  117 

interpretation  of  religion.  He  believed  communion  with  Christ  was 
dependent  upon  faith,  and  not  upon  any  sacred  rite,  and  hence  these 
sacred  rites  would  be  of  no  avail  apart  from  this  living  faith.  Christ 
was  living  within  Paul,  because  he  had  become  united  to  his  Master  by 
faith,  and  he  had  undoubtedly  experienced  a  strengthening  of  this  faith 
and  a  quickening  of  the  Spirit  within  by  participating  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  The  feelings  which  he  had  inherited  from  his  contact  with  the 
Greeks  would  make  it  natural  for  him  to  believe  that  Christ  was  present 
at  the  feast,  and  his  own  faith  would  bring  him  into  fellowship  with 
his  unseen,  but  present  Lord.  This  feast  could  not  be  for  Paul  a  simple 
memorial  of  one  who  had  died;  it  was  a  spiritual  communion  with  One 
who  is  living  and  is  coming  again  to  be  the  judge  of  men.  Paul's  con- 
ception of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  Jewish,  neither  was  it  Greek, 
nor  primitive  Christian;  it  was  peculiarly  his  own.  These  other  in- 
fluences had  been  amalgamated  and  modified  under  his  own  creative 
personality,  and  the  result  was  a  Pauline  conception  of  the  Lord's 
Supper. 

Having  formulated  his  doctrine  of  the  eucharistic  meal,  Paul  then 
read  his  thought  back  into  the  Old  Testament.  In  using  the  Hebrews 
to  illustrate  the  truth  that  God  may  reject  those  who  once  had  his 
approval,  if  they  forsake  him  and  became  disobedient,  he  made  a  com- 
parison, not  only  between  the  baptism  of  the  Christians  and  the  Hebrews, 
but  also  between  their  sacred  food  and  drink.  He  said  the  Israelites 
"did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  food;  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual 
drink :  for  they  drank  of  a  spiritual  rock  that  followed  them :  and  the 
rock  was  Christ"  (I  Cor.  10:3,  4).  Paul  made  the  manna  and  the  rock 
correspond  to  the  loaf  and  the  cup  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  his  argu- 
ment implies  that  as  eating  of  the  manna  and  drinking  of  the  rock  did 
not  save  the  Israelites,  neither  would  the  mere  eating  of  the  loaf  and 
drinking  of  the  cup  save  the  Christians. 

No  Jew,  unless  he  had  approached  it  from  the  Christian  point  of 
view,  would  have  thought  of  the  manna  and  the  rock  as  being  like  the 
emblems  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  There  is  nothing  in  this  experience  of 
the  Israelites  that  could  have  been  a  source  for  the  development  of  Paul's 
doctrine.  His  doctrine  was  developed  from  other  sources,  and  he  then 
read  it  back  into  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Worship  of  the  Church 

Paul  did  not  give  any  definite  instructions  about  the  general  order 
of  worship  in  the  church.     He  perhaps  did  not  regard  this  as  important, 


118  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

and  he  left  the  churches  to  develop  their  own  order  of  worship  under 
the  spontaneous  promptings  of  the  Spirit.  Their  worship  was  under 
the  control  of  the  Spirit,  and  each  one  took  the  part  which  the  Spirit 
prompted  him  to  take. 

Spiritual  Gifts 

Paul's  fullest  and  most  complete  discussion  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit 
is  in  I  Cor.  chaps.  XII-XIV,  and  this  discussion  seems  to  have  been 
occasioned  by  disorders,  which  were  the  result  of  abuses  of  the  gifts. 
This  discussion  presents  a  very  interesting  picture  of  the  worship  of 
the  Christian  community  in  Corinth,  and  perhaps  this  picture  would 
fairly  represent  other  Gentile  communities  as  well.  The  Spirit  bestowed 
on  the  members  of  this  community  dififerent  kinds  of  gifts,  and  these 
gifts  found  expression  in  their  worship.  One  had  the  word  of  wisdom, 
another  the  word  of  knowledge,  another  faith,  and  another  gifts  of  heal- 
ings. Some  had  the  gift  of  working  miracles,  others  had  the  gift  of 
prophecy,  and  others  had  the  gift  of  discerning  spirits.  Some  had  the 
gift  of  divers  kinds  of  tongues,  and  others  had  the  gift  of  interpretation 
of  tongues. 

It  seems  that  the  expression  of  these  gifts  had  caused  disorder  in 
the  church.  While  one  was  prophesying,  another,  moved  by  a  sudden 
impulse,  would  begin  speaking,  or  another,  seized  by  the  Spirit,  would 
utter  unintelligible  sounds.  Perhaps  two  or  three  would  give  way  to 
these  ecstatic  feelings  at  the  same  time.  There  must  have  been  the 
wildest  disorder  in  some  of  their  meetings.  There  was  so  much  con- 
fusion among  the  worshippers  that  a  stranger  coming  in  might  think 
they  were  mad  (I  Cor.  14:23).  It  would  seem  that  in  some  of  these 
meetings  there  were  those  who,  during  these  ecstatic  spells,  pronounced 
curses  upon  Jesus  (I  Cor.  12:3). 
a.  Statement  of  Paul's  teaching. 

Paul  believed  in  the  reahty  of  these  charismata.  He  believed  it 
was  the  same  Spirit  that  bestowed  these  diversities  of  gifts,  and  that 
the  manifestation  of  these  was  an  indication  of  the  Spirit's  presence 
and  power.  He  even  believed  in  the  gift  of  speaking  with  tongues, 
and  he  thanked  God  that  he  spoke  with  tongues  more  than  all  the 
rest  (I  Cor.  14:18).  Paul  beUeved  in  these  ecstatic  experiences,  and  he 
gloried  in  his  own  visions  and  revelations.  He  referred  to  an  experience 
when  he,  whether  in  the  body  or  out  of  the  body  he  could  not  say,  was 
caught  up  into  Paradise  and  heard  unspeakable  words. 

Paul  urged  that  these  spirits  should  be  tested,  for  there  were  evil 
spirits  as  well  as  good  ones,  and  the  manifestation  of  evil  spirits  should 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  119 

not  be  permitted  in  the  life  of  the  church.  The  standard  by  which 
the  spirit  was  to  be  tested  was  the  attitude  towards  Christ  of  the  indi- 
vidual through  whom  the  spirit  was  working  (I  Cor.  12:3).  The  man 
who  says,  ''Jesus  is  anathema, "  is  possessed  by  an  evil  spirit  rather  than 
by  the  spirit  of  God,  for  no  one  can  say  "Jesus  is  anathema,"  if  he  is 
speaking  under  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit.  The  one  who  says, 
"  Jesus  is  Lord, "  has  the  true  spirit,  for  no  one  can  call  Jesus  Lord  except 
by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Paul  urged  that  inasmuch  as  those  who  possessed  these  different 
gifts  were  parts  of  one  body,  they  should  be  used  for  the  building  up 
of  that  body.  He  believed  these  gifts  of  the  Spirit  should  be  valued 
according  to  their  helpfulness,  and  judged  by  this  standard,  the  gift 
of  prophecy  was  more  valuable  than  the  gift  of  speaking  with  tongues, 
because  prophecy  edified  others  and  the  gift  of  speaking  with  tongues 
was  an  ecstatic  experience  which  helped  only  the  speaker.  The  gift 
of  speaking  with  tongues  had  no  value  for  the  community,  unless  there 
was  some  one  present  who  was  able  to  act  as  interpreter,  and  if  there 
was  no  interpreter  present,  the  use  of  this  gift  might  even  be  injurious 
to  the  community  (I  Cor.  14:26).  Having  adopted  the  principle  that 
everything  should  be  done  unto  edifying,  Paul  insisted  that  not  more 
than  two  or  three  at  most  should  speak  in  a  tongue,  and  that  these 
must  be  in  turn;  and  even  this  should  not  be  permitted  unless  there 
was  some  one  present  who  could  interpret  to  the  assembly  what  had  been 
said.  If  no  interpreter  was  present,  the  man  who  felt  prompted  to 
speak  in  a  tongue  should  keep  silent  in  the  church  and  speak  to  him- 
seK  and  to  God.  Paul  held  that  while  speaking  in  a  tongue  might  help 
the  one  who  did  the  speaking,  the  law  of  love  should  control  his  actions; 
and  hence  he  should  be  silent  when  his  speaking  would  not  edify.  Only 
two  or  three  of  the  prophets  were  to  speak,  and  the  rest  were  to  dis- 
criminate between  their  messages.  These  prophets  were  to  speak  as 
they  felt  moved  by  the  Spirit,  and  the  people  were  to  determine  which 
one  had  the  true  message.  He  taught  that  if  while  one  prophet  was 
speaking,  another  felt  that  a  revelation  had  been  made  to  him,  he  could 
begin  speaking  and  the  other  must  sit  down.  Two  men  were  not  per- 
mitted to  speak  at  once,  and  the  fact  that  the  Spirit  was  beginning  to 
use  another  man  was  an  indication  that  he  was  through  with  the  one  who 
had  been  speaking.  The  spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the 
prophets  (I  Cor.  14:32). 

Paul  believed  love  was  the  most  excellent  gift  of  the  Spirit  (I  Cor. 
12:31  ff.),  and  he  said  all  other  gifts  must  be  subjected  to  that.    These 


120  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Other  gifts  would  fail,  but  love  would  abide.  He  urged  the  Corinthians 
to  pursue  spiritual  gifts,  but  to  use  them  only  as  they  would  serve 
the  law  of  love. 

b.  Sources  from  which  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  spiritual  gifts, 
(a).  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

The  Jewish  religion  of  Paul's  day  was  dominated  by  Scribism,  and 
hence  it  was  quite  formal;  but  the  religion  of  the  prophets  was  more 
spiritual.  The  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  period  beheved  they, 
were  under  the  control  of  the  divine  Spirit.  Old  Testament  prophecy 
at  its  best  was  unlike  the  New  Testament  phenomenon  of  speaking  with 
tongues,  as  their  utterances  were  intelUgible;  but  in  the  earlier  stages 
the  ecstatic  character  was  very  prominent.  One  of  the  most  striking 
examples  of  this  is  found  in  I  Sam.  19:20-24.  When  Saul's  messengers 
came  to  Samuel  and  the  prophets,  the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  them 
and  they  prophesied.  Saul  sent  messengers  a  second  and  a  third 
time,  and  they  had  the  same  experiences  as  did  the  first.  Then  he  went 
himself,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  him  and  he  prophesied  before 
Samuel.  He  stripped  off  his  clothes  and  prophesied,  and  he  lay  down 
naked  all  that  day  and  all  that  night.  The  Testament  of  Job  (46  ff.) 
indicates  that  there  was  a  phenomenon  in  the  Judaism  of  Paul's  day 
which  was  not  unlike  that  of  speaking  with  tongues. 

The  prophets  in  the  Pauline  churches  were  quite  like  the  Old  Tes- 
tament prophets.    The  purpose  of  their  message  was  to  comfort  and 
edify  the  Christians.     They  were  inspired  men,  and  they  spoke  because 
they  had  a  revelation  from  the  Lord, 
(b)  The  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

Paul's  discussion  in  I  Cor.  12:1-3  would  seem  to  indicate  that  he 
was  warning  the  Corinthians  against  spiritual  manifestations  which 
were  from  heathen  sources.  There  was  undoubtedly  a  phenomenon  in 
heathen  worship  which  was  very  similar  to  the  glossolaUa  of  the  Chris- 
tians. Celsus  (Contra.  Cels.  VII,  8  f .)  and  Lucian  (Alex.  13)  spoke  of 
this  phenomenon  as  existing  among  the  pagans.  It  is  now  generally 
admitted  that  the  initiate  mto  the  mystery-cults  believed  he  received 
the  deity  into  himself,  and  as  a  result,  he  sometimes  lost  control  of 
himself  and  was  possessed  by  the  deity.  Under  the  domination  of 
this  power  he  gave  expression  to  his  ecstatic  feelings,  and  what  he  said 
was  unintelligible  to  his  hearers.  The  experiences  of  Lucius  in  the 
mysteries  of  Isis,  as  related  by  Apulius,  are  very  similar  to  the  experiences 
of  Paul,  as  related  in  II  Cor.  12:1-4.  Lucius  says:  ''I  drew  near  to  the 
confines  of  death;  I  trod  the  threshold  of  Porserpine;  I  was  borne  through 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  121 

all  the  elements  and  returned.  At  midnight  I  saw  the  sun  flashing 
with  a  bright  light;  gods  of  the  world  above,  gods  of  the  world  below, 
into  their  presence  I  came."^^ 

These  special  manifestations  which  resulted  from  the  possession 
of  divine  power  seem  to  have  been  common  to  Jews,  and  Gentiles,  and 
Christians.  Many  of  the  Christians  at  Corinth  had  perhaps  experienced 
these  ecstatic  feelings,  as  initiates  into  the  mystery-cults,  and  after 
they  had  become  Christians,  they  would  attribute  these  former  experi- 
ences to  the  influence  of  evil  spirits.  Paul  told  them  that  their  attitude 
towards  Christ  determined  whether  the  manifestation  was  the  result  of 
an  evil,  or  a  good  spirit. 

(c)  The  life  and  thought  of  the  primitive  church. 

We  cannot  be  certain  about  the  special  manifestations  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  early  church.  Scholars  differ  in  their  interpretation  of  the 
Pentecostal  phenomenon  of  speaking  with  tongues.  It  is  quite  probable 
that  the  Pentecostal  experiences,  which  are  recorded  in  the  second 
chapter  of  Acts,  and  the  experiences  at  the  home  of  Cornelius,  which 
are  recorded  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Acts,  were  the  same  in  character  as 
those  in  Corinth  which  Paul  discussed.  According  to  Acts,  a  special 
bestowment  of  the  Spirit  was  made  to  men.  This  was  sometimes  made 
directly  by  God,  and  sometimes  it  was  the  result  of  the  laying  on  of 
the  apostles'  hands;  but  in  either  case,  special  gifts  were  the  result. 
While  we  do  not  know  just  what  the  beUef  in  the  early  church  was 
concerning  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  it  seems  almost  certain  that  there 
must  have  been  some  conception  which  was  the  basis  of  the  account 
which  we  have  in  Acts,  and  Paul  inherited  that,  and  it  became  a  part 
of  his  Christian  thinking. 

(d)  His  own  personal  experience. 

Paul's  Jewish  training,  his  Greek  environment,  and  the  life  and 
thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered  helped  to  produce  his 
experience  of  spiritual  gifts,  and  this  experience  became  authoritative 
for  him.  He  beheved  in  the  reality  of  these  spiritual  manifestations, 
because  he  had  experienced  them  in  his  own  life.  He  would  not  forbid 
anyone  to  speak  with  tongues,  because  this  manifestation  was  an  indi- 
cation of  the  Spirit's  presence,  and  to  forbid  the  expression  of  this 
manifestation,  would  be  to  interfere  with  the  Spirit.  Paul  beheved 
men  could  speak  with  tongues,  for  he  had  possessed  that  gift  himself, 
and  could  speak  with  tongues  more  than  all  the  rest.     He  believed  in 

18  See  Kirsopp  Lake,  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  p.  205. 


122 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 


ecstatic  experiences,  because  he  had  had  visions  and  revelations  and 
had  been  caught  up  into  Paradise. 

In  his  effort  to  regulate  these  spiritual  manifestations  in  the  church 
worship,  Paul  was  guided  by  the  purpose  which  he  sought  to  accom- 
pUsh.  He  wanted  to  build  up  the  individual,  and  he  was  anxious  that 
the  individual  should  help  him  build  up  the  community.  Paul  insisted 
that  one  should  take  the  part  in  worship  which  builds  himself  up  spiri- 
tually, and  at  the  same  time  edifies  others.  He  held  that  the  mani- 
festations of  the  Spirit  are  granted  for  some  helpful  purpose,  and  that 
they  should  be  used  only  as  they  serve  that  purpose.  Paul  beUeved 
the  one  who  prophesies  is  greater  than  the  one  who  speaks  with  a 
tongue,  because  he  is  more  helpful  to  others.  He  thanked  God  that  he 
spoke  with  tongues  more  than  all  the  rest,  but  he  said  he  would  rather 
speak  five  words  with  the  understanding,  so  that  he  would  be  helpful 
to  others,  than  to  speak  ten  thousand  words  in  a  tongue. 

Paul  declared  that  the  greatest  gift  is  love,  and  he  said  the  man 
who  possesses  that  gift  will  seek,  not  his  own  advantage,  but  that  which 
is  for  the  good  of  all.  While  Paul  urged  the  individual  to  speak  to 
himself  and  to  God,  if  there  was  no  one  present  who  could  interpret 
his  feelings,  yet  he  urged  the  community  not  to  prevent  him  from  speak- 
ing (I  Cor.  14:39,  40).  This  illustrates  Paul's  principle  of  the  law  of 
love.  While  he  urged  those  who  had  the  gift  of  tongues  to  keep  silent 
in  the  church,  on  the  ground  that  they  did  not  help  others,  yet  he  urged 
the  church  to  tolerate  them,  on  the  ground  that  they  might  injure  them 
if  they  did  not. 

Paul  was  confident  that  on  these  matters  he  was  expressing  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord  (I  Cor.  14:37),  and  he  did  not  permit  others 
to  set  their  inspiration  over  against  his  instruction.  He  said:  ''If  any 
man  thinketh  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him  take  knowl- 
edge of  the  things  which  I  write  unto  you  that  they  are  the  command- 
ment of  the  Lord."  This  was  one  of  his  most  positive  declarations  of 
the  fact  that  he  believed  he  was  Christ's  representative  and  that  Christ 
was  speaking  through  him.  Being  the  ambassador  of  Christ,  he  claimed 
authority  to  regulate  the  worship  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  and  he 
told  those  who  claimed  to  be  prophets  that  they  could  prove  their 
inspiration  by  recognizing  his  authority.  He  severely  rebuked  any 
who  would  presume  to  question  his  authority.  He  said  if  any  should 
be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  things  which  he  was  speaking  were  the 
commandments  of  the  Lord  he  would  have  to  be  ignorant,  but  his 
ignorance  would  not  alter  the  facts.    Paul  was  confident  that  the  law 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  123 

of  love  was  the  law  of  Christ,  and  hence  he  could  enforce  these  regula- 
tions as  being  the  commandment  of  Christ  himseK.  Paul  believed 
Christ  was  dwelling  within  him  and  was  speaking  through  him. 

In  his  discussion  of  spiritual  gifts,  Paul  made  only  one  reference  to 
the  Old  Testament,  and  that  was  to  prove  that  tongues  are  a  sign  to 
the  unbelieving  and  not  to  them  that  believe  (I  Cor.  14:21,  22).  This 
quotation  is  from  Isaiah  (28:11  ff.),  and  in  its  original  connection,  had 
no  reference  to  ecstatic  experiences,  like  those  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  it  was  only  by  a  rabbinical  method  of  interpretation  that  Paul 
could  put  that  meaning  into  it.  Paul  derived  his  conception  of  speaking 
with  tongues  from  other  sources,  and  then  read  it  back  into  the  Old 
Testament.  In  the  development  of  his  notion  of  spiritual  gifts,  Paul 
received  elements  from  his  Jewish  training,  from  his  Greek  environ- 
ment, and  from  the  life  and  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered, 
and  in  the  loom  of  ,his  own  experience  he  wove  these  into  what  became 
truth  to  him,  and  he  insisted  upon  his  conclusions  as  being  truth  to 
others. 

Conduct  of  Women  in  the  Meetings 

It  is  a  principle  of  the  gospel  that  in  Christ  there  is  neither  male 
nor  female.  Paul  announced  that  principle  in  his  letter  to. the  Gala- 
tians  (3:28),  and  he  may  have  proclaimed  it  when  he  was  at  Corinth. 
It  is  quite  probable  that  some  of  the  Christian  women  at  Corinth  in- 
sisted on  having  equal  privileges  with  the  men  in  the  public  assembUes, 
and  perhaps  some  of  them  were  coming  to  the  meetings  unveiled,  and 
were  insisting  on  the  right  of  praying  and  prophesying.  It  seems 
almost  certain  that  the  church,  in  the  letter  sent  to  Paul,  had  asked 
about  the  place  of  women  in  the  public  assemblies,  and  he  discussed 
this  at  some  length  in  two  important  passages  in  I  Corinthians. 
a.  Statement  of  Paul's  teaching. 

Paul  maintained  that  religious  equality  does  not  annul  the  divine 
ordinance  that  woman  is  in  subjection  to  man.  To  disregard  this  re- 
lation, which  God  ordained,  would  bring  a  scandal  upon  the  church,  and 
it  would  also  be  contrary  to  nature  and  to  the  general  customs. 

It  seems  quite  probable  that  some  of  the  women  urged  in  favor  of 
their  attending  the  meetings  unveiled  that,  if  the  Spirit  should  prompt 
them  to  pray  or  prophesy,  it  would  be  difficult  for  them  to  respond 
^if  they  had  their  heads  covered.  Paul  insisted  that  a  woman  should 
not  pray  or  prophesy  with  her  head  unveiled,  for  that  would  place 
her  in  a  position  of  dishonor  and  disrespect.  Her  womanly  nature 
is  expressed  in  the  covering  of  her  head,  and  Paul  declared  that  if  she 


124  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

insisted  on  laying  this  aside,  she  should  go  the  full  extent  in  claiming 
equality  with  the  masculine  sex,  and  have  her  hair  cut  short.  Paul 
was  not  discussing,  in  I  Corinthians  11:2-16,  woman's  right  to  pray 
or  prophesy  in  pubUc,  but  her  right  to  attend  the  meetings  with  her 
head  unveiled,  and  he  was  emphatic  in  his  assertion  that  she  did  not 
have  this  right.  He  said  such  a  thing  would  be  contrary  to  decency, 
and  to  general  custom,  as  well  as  to  the  divine  order.  He  did  not 
say  woman  had  the  right  to  participate  in  the  pubHc  worship,  but 
he  did  say  she  should  not  pray  or  prophesy  with  her  head  unveiled. 

In  another  connection  (I  Cor.  14:33-36),  Paul  discussed  woman's 
right  to  speak  in  the  assembly  of  the  church,  and  he  was  emphatic  in 
his  statement  that  she  should  keep  silent  "for  it  is  not  permitted  unto 
them  to  speak."  He  told  the  women  to  ask  their  husbands  at  home, 
if  they  wanted  to  learn  anything,  and  to  keep  silent  in  the  meetings, 
"for  it  is  shameful  for  a  woman  to  speak  in  the  church." 
b.  Sources  which  contributed  to  the  development  of  Paul's  thought, 
(a)  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

The  conception  of  woman's  position  in  religion  which  Paul  inherited 
from  Judaism  was  practically  the  same  as  the  one  which  he  stated  in 
I  Corinthians.  Woman  was  granted  the  privileges  of  reUgion,  but 
she  did  not  participate  in  the  worship  of  the  temple,  or  of  the  synagogue 
to  the  extent  of  assuming  leadership.  It  was  man's  place  to  lead  in 
the  worship.  Paul  brought  this  Jewish  conception  over  into  his  Chris- 
tian thinking,  and  it  undoubtedly  influenced  him  when  he  was  called 
upon  to  decide  what  woman's  position  in  the  church  should  be. 

Paul  used  this  Jevsdsh  conception,  along  with  the  Old  Testament,  to 
prove  his  argument,  and  his  method  was  in  keeping  with  his  rabbinical 
training.  He  said  a  man  ought  not  to  have  his  head  covered,  because 
he  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God;  but  a  woman  ought  to  have  her  head 
covered,  because  she  is  the  glory  of  man.  Man  was  not  created  for  the 
woman,  but  the  woman  was  created  for  the  man;  hence  she  ought  to 
have  the  sign  of  authority  on  her  head.  For  her  to  pray  with  uncovered 
head  would  be  equivalent  to  declaring  that  she  was  on  an  equality  with 
man,  and  Paul's  Jewish  training  would  not  permit  him  to  yield  to 
that  position.  He  also  argued  that  a  woman  should  have  "a.  sign  of 
authority  on  her  head,  because  of  the  angels."  He  did  not  explain 
what  he  meant  by  that  statement,  and  we  cannot  be  absolutely  certain 
of  his  meaning.  There  are  two  possible  interpretations.  He  might 
have  held  that  if  she  prayed  with  uncovered  head  she  would  be  a  cause 
of  temptation  to  the  angels,  and  the  belief  that  angels  looked  upon 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  125 

women  with  lustful  eyes  is  not  uncommon  in  Jewish  literature.  He 
might  have  meant  that  the  sight  of  a  woman  praying  with  unveiled 
head  might  be  an  occasion  of  offense  to  the  angels.  This  would  be 
equivalent  to  saying  that  women,  even  if  they  do  not  hesitate  to  shock 
men,  should  hesitate  to  shock  the  angels,  who  are  present  at  the  meet- 
ings.^' 

As  pointed  out  above,  one  reason  why  Paul  did  not  permit  women  to 
speak  in  the  meetings  was  the  Jewish  idea  that  women  should  be  in 
subjection  to  their  husbands,  and  he  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
this  was  according  to  the  law  (I  Cor.   14:34). 
(b)  The  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

Paul's  instructions  to  the  Christian  women  of  Corinth  should  be 
studied  in  connection  with  woman's  position  in  the  Greek  world.  The 
Greek  wife  was  modest,  and  her  life  was  one  of  seclusion,  but  there  was 
a  class  of  women,  who  were  called  "hetairai,"  that  put  themselves 
forward.  These  hetairai  were  women  of  culture,  and  they  could  talk 
inteUigently  on  the  topics  of  the  day  and  sing,  and  tell  jokes;  but 
they  were  of  questionable  morals.  Greek  wives  were  kept  in  seclu- 
sion, but  men  associated  freely  and  openly  with  the  hetairai.^^  A  Greek 
woman,  by  speaking  in  a  public  meeting,  would  be  casting  suspicion  on 
her  character,  and  Paul  was  anxious  to  protect  the  church  from  reproach. 
There  were  added  reasons  at  Corinth  why  Christian  women  should  be 
modest.  Corinth  was  a  dissolute  city,  and  licentiousness  was  prac- 
tised in  the  name  of  religion.  It  is  said  that  there  were  a  thousand 
women  consecrated  to  immorality  at  the  shrine  of  Aphrodite.  Paul 
wanted  to  protect  the  church  as  well  as  the  Christian  women.  The 
faithful  wives  of  the  Mediterranean  world  veiled  themselves,  lived 
modestly,  and  were  content  to  occupy  a  position  which  was  inferior 
to  that  of  their  husbands;  and  Paul  was  anxious  that  Christian  women 
should  be  exemplars  of  purity  and  modesty, 
(c)  The  life  and  thought  of  the  primitive  Christian  community. 

Very  little  is  known  about  the  position  of  women  in  the  worship 
of  the  primitive  Christian  group,  but  as  the  movement  was  largely 
Jewish,  it  can  be  assumed  that  her  position  was  about  the  same  as  it 
was  in  the  Jewish  worship.  Perhaps  the  thought  of  the  primitive 
Christian  community  contributed  little  or  nothing  to  the  development 
of  Paul's  notion  of  woman's  place  in  the  worship  of  the  church. 

1'  See  Int.  Grit.  Com. 

^*  See  S.  Angus,  The  Environment  of  Early  Christianity,  1915,  pp.  44  ff. 


126  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

(d)  Christian  experience. 

In  his  effort  to  prove  that  a  woman  ought  not  to  pray  with  her 
head  unveiled,  Paul  appealed  to  the  common  experience  of  mankind. 
He  said  it  is  a  shame  for  a  woman  to  be  shorn  or  shaven,  and  hence  it 
ought  to  be  a  shame  for  her  to  be  unveiled.  He  made  his  appeal  to 
their  sense  of  propriety.  He  asked,  ''Is  it  seemly  that  a  woman  pray 
to  God  unveiled?"  and  the  experience  of  the  people  to  whom  he  was 
writing  would  lead  them  to  reply  in  the  negative.  He  appealed  to 
their  feeUngs,  to  their  reason,  and  to  nature  itself.  He  said  nature 
teaches  that  if  a  man  have  long  hair  it  is  a  dishonor  to  him,  but  if  a 
woman  have  long  hair  it  is  a  glory  to  her. 

Paul  made  his  final  appeal  to  the  custom  of  all  the  churches.  He 
said  if  there  is  any  man  who  seemeth  to  be  contentious,  and  is  not 
disposed  to  accept  his  conclusions  on  these  matters,  such  an  one  is 
without  any  precedent  to  sustain  him,  for  "we  have  no  such  custom, 
neither  the  churches  of  God"  (I  Cor.  11:16).  i7/x€ts  may  refer  either 
to  Paul,  or  to  all  the  apostles.  It  may  mean  that  Paul  did  not  permit 
women  to  go  unveiled  in  churches  where  he  had  authority,  or  it  may 
mean  that  he  did  not  know  of  any  apostle  who  permitted  this,  and  that 
there  was  no  church  anywhere  where  such  a  thing  was  tolerated. 

Paul's  chief  reason  why  women  should  be  veiled  was  based  upon 
feeling:  it  was  unseemly,  for  he  regarded  it  as  being  the  same  thing 
for  a  woman  to  be  unveiled  as  to  be  shaven.  He  had  been  accustomed 
to  seeing  modest  women  veiled,  and  he  could  not  think  of  them  desiring 
to  be  unveiled.  He  appealed  to  the  sense  of  propriety  in  others,  and 
asked  them  whether  it  is  seemly  that  a  woman  should  pray  to  God  un- 
veiled. He  further  substantiated  his  position  with  arguments  from  the 
Scriptures  which  he  put  forth  in  rabbinical  style,  and  then  he  fell  back 
on  the  custom  of  the  churches. 

Church  Discipline 

Statement  of  Paul's  Teaching 

t  Paul  taught  that  the  Christian  should  be  governed  in  his  relation 
j  to  others  by  Christ's  law,  which  is  the  law  of  love  (Gal.  6:1,  2).  The 
church  should  be  governed  in  its  treatment  of  an  erring  Christian 
by  the  well-being  of  all  concerned.  Those  who  are  spiritual  should 
seek  in  all  gentleness  to  win  back  the  erring  one.  The  strong  should 
bear  the  burden  of  the  weak.  But  when  one  persists  in  Uving  a  life 
which  is  injurious  to  others,  Christ's  law  of  love  denmnds  harsh  treat- 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  127 

ment.  Paul's  instructions  concerning  the  treatment  of  the  fornicator 
in  the  Corinthian  Church  is  an  illustration  of  this  fact  (I  Cor.  5:4  ff.). 
This  man  was  living  in  unlawful  relationship  with  his  father's  wife, 
and  in  a  lost  epistle,  Paul  had  urged  the  church  to  withdraw  fellowship 
from  this  man  who  was  living  in  fornication  (I  Cor.  5:9-13).  It  seems 
that  the  Corinthians,  instead  of  following  Paul's  advice,  took  the  side 
of  the  man  whom  he  was  denouncing.  In  the  next  epistle,  which  is 
our  I  Corinthians,  Paul  rebuked  them  for  being  ''puffed  up"  when 
they  should  have  felt  outraged,  and  he  urged  them  to  "put  away  the 
wicked  man."    He  urged  them  to  deliver  him  over  to  Satan. 

In  his  instructions  concerning  the  treatment  of  the  fornicator,  Paul 
virtually  commanded  the  Corinthians  to  follow  his  advice.  He  told 
them  that,  although  absent  in  body,  he  was  present  in  spirit,  and  as 
though  present,  he  had  already  judged  the  man,  and  they  were  to  come 
together  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  do  as  he  had  instructed  them. 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Convictions 

a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

If  the  man  in  question  at  Corinth  was  living  in  unmarried  relation- 
ship, he  was  manifestly  violating  the  Jewish  law;  and  if  he  was  living 
in  married  relationship  he  was  condemned  by  the  law,  and  in  either 
case  he  was  guilty  of  adultery.  These  moral  principles  of  the  law, 
which  had  become  a  part  of  Paul's  thinking,  undoubtedly  influenced 
him  in  his  instructions  to  Christians,  for  he  would  demand  of  them  the 
same  high  standard  which  is  taught  in  the  law. 

According  to  Jewish  law,  a  curse  was  to  be  pronounced  upon  a  wife 
who  was  accused  of  adultery  but  denied  the  charge,  and  the  formula 
for  pronouncing  this  curse  is  given  in  Num.  5  :ll-28.  If  the  woman  was 
innocent,  the  curse  would  not  injure  her,  but  if  she  was  guilty,  Jehovah 
would  make  her  thigh  to  fall  away  and  her  body  to  swell.  It  would  be 
easy  for  a  Jew  to  extend  that  curse  to  include  all  who  were  violating 
God's  commandments.  The  notion  that  the  judgment  of  God  followed 
prophetic  denunciation  was  common  in  Jewish  thought.  A  striking 
illustration  of  that  fact  was  the  cursing  of  Hananiah  by  the  prophet 
Jeremiah  (Jer.  28:12-17).  Another  illustration  was  the  cursing  of 
Ananias  and  Sapphira  by  Peter  (Acts  5:1-11).  Paul's  admonition  to 
deliver  the  fornicator  in  Corinth  "unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the 
flesh"  was  the  Jewish  formula  of  excommunication.  He  was  command- 
ing them  to  pronounce  the  Jewish  ban  against  the  one  who  was  bringing 
reproach  upon  the  church.    If  the  punishment  did  not  follow  immedi- 


128  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

ately  after  the  pronouncing  of  the  curse,  that  was  an  indication  that 
there  was  room  for  repentance.  If  the  person  repented,  the  curse 
could  be  recalled,  for  the  one  who  had  pronounced  it  could  remove  it. 

b.  The  life  and  thought  of   the  Mediterranean  world. 

The  custom  of  pronouncing  a  curse  was  common  among  the  Greeks. 
Theseus  pronounced  a  curse  on  Hippolytus  which  was  intended  to  pro- 
duce death,  and  in  case  he  did  not  die  at  once  he  was  to  be  exiled.  I  Cor. 
5:4,  5  should  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  ancient  custom  of  execration, 
which  consisted  in  turning  a  person  over  to  the  gods  of  the  lower  world." 
A  number  of  examples  have  been  brought  to  light  from  Greek  papyri 
which  would  indicate  that  Paul  was  advising  the  Corinthians  to  perform 
a  solemn  act  of  execration,  and  that  they,  being  Greeks,  would  under- 
stand what  he  wanted  them  to  do. 

A  curse  pronounced  upon  one  who  was  offending  the  deity  seems  to 
have  been  a  common  conception  of  the  ancient  world.  The  Jews  had 
the  notion  of  turning  the  evil-doer  over  to  Satan,  and  Paul  inherited 
this  belief.  This  idea  which  came  from  his  Jewish  training  was  strength- 
ened by  his  contact  with  the  thought  of  the  Greek  world.  Paul  had 
lived  in  Corinth,  and  he  knew  the  Corinthians  would  understand  what 
he  meant  by  delivering  the  transgressor  over  to  Satan,  so  he  did  not 
feel  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  explain  what  he  wanted  them  to  do. 

c.  The  life  and   thought   of   the  primitive   church. 

It  is  not  probable  that  the  subject  of  church  discipline  was  definitely 
formulated  in  the  primitive  church,  for  the  church  itself  was  not  well 
organized.  We  do  not  know  just  what  the  situation  was.  We  do 
not  know  to  what  extent  the  church  excluded  unworthy  members, 
or  to  what  extent  the  curse  was  pronounced  upon  those  who,  by  their 
.  manner  of  life,  were  defying  God  in  a  conspicuous  manner.  Acts  gives 
the  example  of  the  death  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  which  was  caused  by 
the  curse  pronounced  by  Peter,  and  of  the  curse  which  Peter  pronounced 
upon  Simon  of  Samaria.  Acts  also  gives  the  account  of  the  curse  pro- 
nounced by  Paul  upon  Ely  mas,  the  sorcerer  of  Cyprus.  The  early 
church  undoubtedly  had  about  the  same  attitude  towards  discipUne 
that  was  found  in  the  Jewish  communities,  for  it  was  largely  dominated 
by  Jewish  ideals. 

d.  His  own  personal  experience. 

Paul's  own  personal  experience  and  the  purpose  which  he  had  before 
him  played  an  important  part  in  the  development  of  his  conception 

^»  Adolf  Deissmann  {Licht  mm  Osten,  1908,  p.  218;  Eng.  trans.,  1910,  pp.  303  ff.) 
says:  "A  person  who  wished  to  injure  an  enemy  or  to  punish  an  evil-doer  consecrated 
him  by  incantation  and  tablet  to  the  powers  of  darkness  below. " 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  129 

of  church  discipUne.  In  his  instruction  to  the  churches,  he  urged 
them  to  be  governed  by  the  desire  to  help  the  individual  with  whom 
they  were  dealing,  hence  in  his  letter  to  the  Galatians,  he  urged  them 
to  restore  the  one  who  is  overtaken  in  a  fault,  and  to  do  it  in  the  spirit 
of  gentleness.  He  urged  them  to  bear  each  other's  burdens  and  help 
each  other  along.  He  had  doubtless  seen  many  who  had  made  mistakes, 
but  had  been  dealt  with  gently  by  the  church  and  had  been  restored 
to  favor  and  loyalty,  and  hence  he  urged  this  on  the  church  as  a  policy. 
In  dealing  with  the  fornicator,  who  was  puffed  up  and  obstinate,  he 
urged  excommunication  and  the  pronouncing  of  the  curse,  because  he 
knew  from  experience  that  this  would  be  best  for  him  and  for  the  church 
as  well.  Paul's  experience  in  this  case,  as  in  many  others,  was  deter- 
mined by  the  beliefs  which  he  derived  from  Judaism  and  from  the  life 
and  thought  of  the  world  in  which  he  lived,  but  these  beliefs  had  been 
vitalized  by  their  expression  in  life  and  action.  It  is  not  probable  that 
Paul  ever  asked  himself  whence  he  derived  the  conviction  that  the 
purity  of  the  church  should  be  upheld  by  pronouncing  the  curse  in 
extreme  cases.  He  knew  from  experience  that  it  worked,  for  he  had 
pronounced  the  curse  himself  and  he  had  seen  others  pronounce  it. 

Offerings  for  the  Poor  at  Jerusalem 
Statement  of  PauVs  Teaching 

Under  the  leadership  of  Paul,  the  churches  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
made  a  contribution  for  "  the  poor  among  the  saints  that  are  at  Jerusa- 
lem." The  Gentile  Christians  were  led  to  make  this  offering  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  debtors  to  the  Jewish  Christians;  for  inasmuch 
as  they  had  been  made  partakers  of  the  spiritual  things  of  the  primi- 
tive group,  they  felt  that  they  ought  to  share  with  them  of  their  material 
things.  Paul  hoped  through  this  offering  to  accomplish  two  very 
definite  things.  In  the  first  place,  he  believed  it  would  help  to  meet 
a  real  need  in  the  Jerusalem  Church;  and  in  the  second  place,  he  believed 
it  would  help  to  bind  together  the  Gentile  and  Jewish  elements  in  the 
church  (See  Rom.  15:31,  32). 

In  the  Galatian  letter  (2:10),  Paul  referred  to  his  agreement  with 
the  leaders  of  the  Jerusalem  Church  that  he  should  remember  the 
poor,  and  he  added  that  he  was  zealous  to  do  that  very  thing.  He  did 
not  urge  the  offering  in  the  Galatian  letter  because  he  had  other  more 
important  matters  to  discuss,  but  he  had  given  orders  concerning  it  to 
all  the  churches  of  Galatia  (I  Cor.  16:1),  and  they  had  apparently  re- 


130  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

sponded  to  his  appeal  so  liberally  that  they  did  not  need  any  further 
word  of  exhortation  on  that  point. 

Paul  urged  the  Corinthians  to  have  the  offering  ready  so  that  there 
would  not  need  to  be  any  collection  when  he  came  (I  Cor.  16:1-4). 
He  exhorted  them  to  lay  by  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  and  to  give  as 
they  had  been  prospered.  He  said  he  had  given  orders  to  all  the  churches 
of  Galatia,  and  it  seems  that  they  were  to  follow  the  same  method  in 
their  giving  which  he  had  outlined  for  the  Corinthians.  In  his  second 
letter  to  the  Corinthians,  he  commended  the  liberality  of  the  churches 
of  Macedonia  in  ministering  to  the  saints  (II  Cor.  8:1-5),  but  it  seems 
that  the  Corinthian  Church  did  not  respond  very  enthusiastically  to 
his  appeal,  and  Titus  was  sent  to  enlist  them  in  greater  liberality  (II 
Cor.  8:6). 

In  his  letter  to  the  Romans,  Paul  referred  to  these  offerings  which 
he  was  soon  to  take  to  Jerusalem  (Rom.  15:26).  He  emphasized  the 
fact  that  the  churches  of  Macedonia  and  Achaia  gave  because  it  was 
their  good  pleasure.  It  was  a  free  gift  which  they  made,  and  they  gave 
because  they  felt  they  were  debtors. 

Sources  from  which  Paid  Derived  his  Conviction  and  upon  which  he  Based 

his   Appeal 

a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

It  was  customary  for  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora  to  send  gifts  to  Jeru- 
salem. They  were  required  to  send  the  haK-shekel  which  was  used 
to  defray  the  expenses  connected  with  public  worship  in  the  temple. 
This  tax  was  required  of  every  male  IsraeUte  who  was  twenty  years 
of  age,  or  over,  regardless  of  whether  he  lived  in  Palestine  or  in  the 
Gentile  world.  In  addition  to  this,  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  as  well 
as  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  made  their  gifts  to  the  priests.^"  In  addition 
to  these  gifts  it  was  common  for  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  to  make 
freewill  offerings  to  the  temple.  Alabarch  Alexander  of  Alexandria 
sent  to  Jerusalem  gold  and  silver  to  cover  the  gates  of  the  court.^  Even 
Gentiles  sometimes  sent  gifts  to  the  temple. 

b.  The  life  and  thought  of  the  primitive  church. 

According  to  Acts  20:35,  Paul,  in  his  address  to  the  Ephesian  elders, 
quoted  a. statement  of  Jesus  to  the  effect  that  "it  is  more  blessed  to 
give  than  to  receive. "  If  Paul  knew  these  words  of  the  Master  when  he 
wrote  I  Corinthians,  it  is  strange  that  he  did  not  make  use  of  them. 

^°  See  Emil  Schurer,  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  Divis.,  II, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  247  f. 

"  See  Sch.  Div.  II,  Vol.  I,  p.  253. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  131 

He  was  anxious  that  he  should  have  an  offering  from  all  the  Gentile 
churches  for  the  poor  at  Jerusalem.  The  Corinthian  Church  had  begun 
to  make  a  contribution,  and  a  year  had  passed  by  and  it  had  not  been 
completed.  Paul  was  urging  them  to  finish  what  they  had  begun,  and 
it  would  seem  that  a  statement  from  Jesus  would  be  the  most  effective 
argument  that  could  be  used;  but  instead  of  using  that,  he  cited  the 
example  of  Jesus.  The  illustration  was  not  taken  from  anything  which 
Jesus  did  during  his  public  ministry,  but  from  what  he  did  in  leaving 
heaven  to  come  to  earth.  In  doing  that  he  gave  up  for  the  sake  of 
others — ''though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that 
ye  through  his  poverty  might  become  rich"  (II  Cor.  8:8-10). 

The  primitive  church  must  have  been  noted  for  its  liberality.  The 
first  part  of  Acts  contains  many  striking  traditions  which  illustrate 
this  spirit  of  generosity.  It  tells  of  those  who  gave  all  their  possessions 
to  a  common  fund  (Acts  2:44,45;  4:32-37),  and  of  those  who, 
to  gain  favor,  pretended  to  have  given  all  when  they  kept  back  a  part 
(Acts  5:1-11).  It  tells  about  the  selection  of  the  "seven"  who  were 
to  look  after  the  poor  by  supplying  their  wants  from  this  common  fund 
(Acts  6:1-6).  It  tells  about  the  young  church  at  Antioch  sending  an 
offering  by  the  hand  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
to  help  those  who  were  suffering  because  of  the  famine  (Acts  11:27- 
30).  All  these  traditions  would  indicate  that  the  primitive  church  must 
have  been  noted  for  its  liberality,  and  that  the  Christians  helped  where- 
ever  there  was  need,  and  that  the  need  was  greatest  at  Jerusalem. 
Paul  must  have  inherited  that  desire  to  help,  and  especially  the  mother 
church,  and  it  must  have  influenced  him  in  his  determination  to  get 
an  offering  from  the  Gentile  churches. 
c.  Authority  of  the  apostolic  leaders. 

According  to  the  statement  in  Gal.  2 :10,  the  apostoHc  leaders  at 
Jerusalem  had  urged  Paul  to  remember  the  poor,  and  if  he  regarded  this 
as  a  command  to  be  enforced  on  all  the  churches,  we  would  expect  him 
to  refer  to  it  in  his  exhortations.  He  was  anxious  that  the  Corinthians 
should  have  fellowship  in  this  work,  and  they  were  slow  in  responding, 
and  if  he  had  regarded  the  authority  of  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  as 
having  special  weight,  it  seems  that  he  would  have  referred  to  it  as  an 
added  incentive;  but  the  only  mention  he  made  of  it  was  in  the  Galatian 
letter,  and  then  he  treated  it  hghtly.  He  said  the  apostolic  leaders 
imparted  nothing  to  him,  for  when  they  saw  the  grace  that  had  been 
given  to  him,  they  gave  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  and  they 
wanted  him  to  remember  the  poor,  and  he  said  he  was  zealous  to  do  that 


132  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

before  they  had  said  anything  about  it.     Paul  virtually  declared  that 
he  was  remembering  the  poor,  not  because  the  apostles  required  it,  for 
he  had  been  zealous  along  those  lines  before  they  had  said  anything 
about  it,  but  because  it  was  what  the  Christian  ought  to  do. 
d.  The  sense  of  Christian  duty. 

In  encouraging  the  Corinthians  to  give,  Paul  appealed  to  their 
sense  of  the  Christian's  obligation.  He  referred  to  the  grace  of  giving 
as  it  was  manifested  in  the  churches  of  Macedonia,  and  declared  that 
in  their  fellowship  in  ministering  to  the  saints  they  gave  beyond  their 
power,  and  the  explanation  of  their  hberality  was  that  they  had  first 
given  themselves  to  the  Lord.  Paul  urged  the  Corinthians  to  abound 
in  the  grace  of  giving  as  they  abounded  in  everything  else.  He  very 
discreetly  said  he  was  not  giving  a  commandment,  but  was  seeking 
through  the  earnestness  of  others  to  prove  the  sincerity  of  their  love  (II 
Cor.  8:1-8).  He  gave  it  as  his  judgment  that  it  was  expedient  for 
them  to  complete  what  they  had  begun  a  year  before.  He  commended 
their  readiness  to  will  to  give,  but  he  urged  them  out  of  their  abiUty 
to  do  what  they  had  planned. 

Paul  demonstrated  in  the  appeal  which  he  made  to  the  Corinthians 
that  he  was  a  master.  The  whole  passage  would  indicate  that  he  was 
anxious  about  the  gift,  and  that  he  had  some  misgivings  whether  it 
would  be  made,  but  he  wrote  as  though  it  was  so  evident  that  they 
would  be  ready  with  the  offering  that  it  was  needless  to  even  mention  it. 
He  said  he  knew  their  willingness  and  he  had  boasted  to  the  churches 
of  Macedonia  that  Achaia  had  been  ready  for  a  year  (II  Cor.  9:1-5). 
His  purpose,  he  said,  in  sending  Titus  and  others  was  not  to  force  them 
to  take  the  offering,  for  that  had  undoubtedly  been  attended  to.  They 
came  as  a  precaution,  lest  the  offering  might  have  been  neglected, 
and  his  glorying  would  then  be  void,  and  if  some  from  Macedonia  should 
be  along  with  him  he  would  be  put  to  shame.  After  Paul  expressed  this 
confidence  in  them,  he  urged  them  to  give  bountifully  and  cheerfully, 
assuring  them  that  God  loves  a  cheerful  giver. 
e.  The  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 

Paul  was  anxious  to  equalize  giving  so  that  those  who  had  could 
make  up  for  those  who  lacked,  and  to  make  his  exhortation  as  forceful 
as  possible,  he  used  an  illustration  from  the  Old  Testament  concerning 
the  gathering  of  the  manna  (II  Cor.  8:15).  His  illustration  is  taken 
from  Ex.  16:18  and  is  introduced  by  the  formula— ''It  is  written." 
Paul  urged  the  Corinthians  to  sow  bountifully  and  to  do  it  cheerfully, 
and  he  assured  them  that  if  they  did  God  would  make  his  grace  abound 


CONCEPTION  OP  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  133 

Upon  them,  and  to  make  his  statement  more  convincing  he  quoted  from 
the  112th  Psalm  (II  Cor.  9:9).  His  use  of  the  Old  Testament  in  these 
two  instances  would  not  indicate  that  he  got  his  idea  of  taking  an  offer- 
ing and  giving  liberally  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  from  the  Old 
Testament;  it  would  indicate  that  the  idea  came  from  other  sources, 
and  that  he  used  the  Old  Testament  to  prove  his  point,  because  he 
regarded  it  as  having  special  authority. 

Paul  placed  the  matter  of  giving  on  the  basis  of  Christian  duty, 
and  used  all  possible  means  to  get  the  Christians  to  act.  He  felt  that 
their  relation  to  Christ  and  to  each  other  should  give  them  a  common 
interest,  and  the  obligation  of  the  Gentile  Christians  to  the  Jerusalem 
group,  who  had  given  the  gospel,  should  prompt  them  to  desire  to  help 
them  in  their  need.  Paul  believed  Christ's  example  and  the  teaching 
of  the  law  should  compel  them  to  give  and  to  give  liberally. 

SUMMARY 

In  the  development  of  his  idea  of  the  church,  its  ordinances,  its 
worship,  its  discipline,  and  its  offerings,  Paul  received  influences  from 
many  different  sources.  His  Jewish  training  and  the  modification  of 
this  by  his  contact  with  the  life  and  thought  of  the  Greek  world  furnished 
the  basis  for  his  later  Christian  thinking.  To  this  was  added  what  he 
received  from  the  church  into  which  he  entered,  and  for  his  conception 
of  the  church,  this  must  have  been  an  important  contribution.  He 
did  not  consider  the  elements  derived  from  the  primitive  church  as 
final,  or  he  would  not  have  been  free  to  modify  them,  but  he  did  un- 
doubtedly consider  them  of  great  value.  That  which  he  received  from 
his  Jewish  training,  and  from  the  life  and  thought  of  the  world  in  which 
he  lived,  and  from  the  church  into  which  he  entered  was  modified,  as 
it  worked  itself  out  in  his  own  experience  and  in  the  experience  of  others. 
A  thing  was  true  to  him  when  it  had  been  substantiated  in  life,  and 
he  felt  free  to  urge  a  course  of  action  upon  others  if  he  had  seen  it  verified 
in  experience.  Paul  urged  Christians  to  conform  to  customs  and  to 
perform  duties  because  they  appeal  to  one's  sense  of  right  and  obliga- 
tion. He  corroborated  his  teaching  concerning  the  church  with  illus- 
tions  and  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  manner  in  which 
Paul  used  the  Old  Testament  in  these  various  instances  plainly  indicates 
that  he  regarded  it  as  authoritative,  and  that  he  felt  it  was  the  strongest 
argument  that  could  be  used,  but  it  would  also  indicate  that  in  many 
cases,  instead  of  deriving  the  truth  he  was  emphasizing  from  the  Old 


134  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Testament,  he  had  received  it  from  other  sources  and  had  read  it  back 
into  the  Old  Testament.  In  theory  Paul  evidently  regarded  the  Scrip- 
tures as  being  of  supreme  authority,  but  in  reality  there  was  an  authority 
which  was  more  vital  to  him  than  the  Scriptures,  and  that  was  his  own 
personal  experience.  In  the  light  of  his  Christian  experience  he  read 
the  Scriptures  and  found  that  for  which  he  was  looking. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  LIFE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  IN  THE  WORLD 

The  Christians  who  were  living  in  pagan  communities,  like  those 
to  which  Paul  was  writing,  had  to  adjust  themselves  to  many  difficult 
and  perplexing  situations,  because  of  their  relation  to  the  world  of 
which  they  were  a  part.  It  is  evident  that  some  of  these  Christians 
had  asked  Paul's  advice  on  some  of  these  relationships.  In  answerng 
their  questions  and  instructing  them  along  important  lines,  Paul  dis- 
cussed many  of  the  most  important  relationships  of  life. 

The  Christian  in  his  Relation  to  Marriage 

Many  questions  arose  in  the  Christian  community  at  Corinth  con- 
cerning the  Christian's  relation  to  marriage,  and  in  their  letter  to  Paul, 
they  had  undoubtedly  asked  his  advice  on  some  of  these  questions. 
It  seems  that  there  were  those  in  Corinth  who  were  altogether  opposed 
to  marriage  on  the  part  of  Christians,  and  there  were  those  who  believed 
marriage  should  be  merely  a  spiritual  relationship.  It  seems  that  they 
asked  him  whether  it  is  right  for  a  Christian  to  marry,  and  if  so,  whether 
a  Christian  should  marry  a  pagan.  They  were  anxious  to  know  whether 
a  man  or  woman  who  had  been  converted  to  Christianity  after  mar- 
riage should  seek  to  be  separated  from  the  pagan  companion.  They 
wanted  to  know  whether  widows  should  re-marry.  Paul's  reply  to 
these  questions  furnishes  one  of  the  best  opportunities  we  have  to  study 
his  conception  of  authority.  The  seventh  chapter  of  I  Corinthians  is 
taken  up  with  this  discussion. 

Statement  of  Paul's  Teaching 

Paul  held  that  celibacy  is  better  than  marriage,  providing  one  has 
the  gift  of  continency.  He  urged  the  unmarried  and  the  widows  to 
remain  as  he  was,  and  thus  be  free  from  the  cares  of  the  home,  so  that 
they  could  give  themselves  unreservedly  to  the  service  of  Christ;  but 
if  they  did  not  have  the  gift  of  continency,  he  permitted  them  to  marry, 
and  even  encouraged  it  lest  they  should  fall  into  temptation. 

Paul's  instructions  to  the  married  were  more  definite.  Perhaps 
an  ascetical  tendency  had  developed  in  Corinth  which  caused  some 
conscientious  Christians  to  regard  marriage  as  an  imperfect,  if  not  unholy, 
relationship.  Where  this  tendency  prevailed  divorce  would  be  regarded 
as  desirable.     When  both  husband  and  wife  were   Christians  Paul 


136  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

urged  them  not  to  separate,  and  in  case  they  did  separate,  he  declared 
that  neither  one  should  marry  again.  The  separated  parties  might 
become  reconciled,  but  as  long  as  the  other  lived  neither  could  marry 
again.  As  indicated  above,  the  Corinthian  Church,  like  those  in  all 
pagan  communities,  had  the  situation  of  a  believing  husband  and  an 
unbelieving  wife,  or  a  believing  wife  and  an  unbelieving  husband,  and 
the  members  were  anxious  to  know  what  was  the  duty  of  Christians  thus 
yoked  up  to  unbelievers.  Paul  told  them  it  was  not  necessary  to  seek 
separation,  and  he  even  encouraged  them,  providing  the  pagan  com- 
panion was  willing,  to  remain  in  the  married  state.  By  doing  this  the 
believer  might  save  the  unbeliever.  The  Christian  member  of  the  mar- 
riage does  not  need  to  fear  that  their  children  will  be  unholy,  for  the 
believer  sanctifies  the  unbelieving  partner  in  the  union,  and  the  children 
that  are  born  of  such  a  marriage  are  holy.  The  husband  and  wife  are  one 
flesh,  and  the  unbeliever  through  union  with  the  behever  is  sancti- 
fied, and  the  children  that  are  born  of  such  a  union  are  holy  in  the  same 
sense  they  would  be  if  both  partners  were  Christians.  If  the  unbe- 
lieving partner  is  unwilling  to  live  with  the  Christian  and  departs, 
the  union  is  severed  and  the  Christian  is  no  longer  bound. 

In  I  Cor.  7:36-38  Paul  discussed  a  man's  attitude  towards  his  virgin, 
and  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  very  indefinite.  According  to  the 
traditional  view,  he  had  in  mind  the  father's  duty  to  his  unmarried 
daughter.  According  to  this  interpretation,  Paul  was  giving  instruc- 
tions to  fathers  or  guardians  of  virgins  of  marriagable  age  to  guide 
them  in  their  Christian  duty.  He  told  them  to  do  what  they  felt  was 
their  duty  under  the  circumstances.  If  for  any  reason  it  should  seem 
best  for  the  virgin  to  marry,  she  should  be  given  in  marriage,  for  this 
would  not  be  sinful;  but  the  father  who  should  think  it  best  for  his 
daughter  not  to  marry,  and  should  keep  her  as  a  virgin,  would  do  better 
than  the  one  who  gave  his  daughter  in  marriage.  Paul  felt  that  there 
would  be  no  sin  in  either  case,  but  he  gave  his  preference  to  those  who 
should  remain  single.  Many  modern  scholars  think  Paul  had  an 
entirely  different  situation  in  mind.  They  think  he  referred  to  the 
custom,  which  later  became  common,  of  men  and  women  living  together 
in  spiritual  union.  This  was  to  test  their  strength  and  to  enable  them 
to  win  a  greater  victory  over  Satan.^    If  Paul  had  this  custom  in  mind, 

1  See  H.  Weinel,  Patdus,  1904,  p.  207,  Eng.  trans.  1906,  p.  268;  Kirsopp  Lake,  The 
Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  184  ff.;  and  F.  C.  Conybeare,  Myth,  Magic  and  Morals, 
pp.  212  f .  Conybeare  says  this  custom  ot  spiritual  marriages  was  widespread  at  this  time. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  137 

then  what  he  sought  to  do  was  to  protect  those  who  were  Hving  in  this 
relationship,  not  by  forbidding  them  to  marry,  but  by  permitting  them 
to  marry  in  case  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  conduct  themselves  pro- 
perly in  the  spiritual  relationship.  If  Paul  had  that  custom  in  mind,  it 
is  evident  that  he  beUeved  it  was  better  for  man  and  woman  to  live  in 
spiritual  companionship  than  to  marry,  and  that  marriage  should  be 
resorted  to  only  as  a  necessity. 

In  his  advice  to  widows  Paul  said,  "A  wife  is  bound  for  so  long  a 
time  as  her  husband  liveth. "  If  she  is  separated  from  her  husband 
she  has  no  right  to  marry  as  long  as  he  is  alive;  "but  if  the  husband 
be  dead,  she  is  free  to  be  married  to  whom  she  will;  only  in  the  Lord.'* 
Paul  taught  that  the  woman  whose  husband  is  dead  can  marry  if  she 
desires,  providing  she  marries  a  Christian;  but  he  gave  it  as  his  judg- 
ment that  she  would  be  happier  if  she  remained  as  she  was. 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Conception 

a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

The  Jews  exalted  the  marriage  relationship,  but  they  evidently 
regarded  it  as  imperfect,  for  according  to  the  Levitical  law,  sexual 
intercourse  made  one  ceremonially  unclean  for  a  day,  and  the  Hebrew 
mother  had  to  be  purified  after  giving  birth  to  a  child.  Paul's  desire 
to  save  virgins  from  "tribulation  in  the  flesh,"  which  comes  to  married 
women,  was  perhaps  the  reflection  of  Jewish  apocalyptical  thought. 
In  Jewish  apocalypses  special  troubles  are  predicted  for  married  women 
in  the  final  tribulation.  There  are  to  be  monstrous  and  premature 
births,^  and  mothers  will  devour  their  children.^  Paul  did  not  use  any 
of  these  apocalyptic  pictures  of  horror,  but  he  was  perhaps  influenced 
by  them  in  advising  women  to  remain  in  virginity. 

b.  The  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

A  strong  ascetic  tendency  was  developing  throughout  the  Mediter- 
ranean world  of  Paul's  day.  The  Stoic  type  of  philosophy  was  popular, 
and  it  emphasized  self-denial  for  the  sake  of  a  higher  good.  Epictetus^ 
made  a  statement  that  is  very  similar  to  the  one  which  is  recorded  in 
I  Cor.  7 :29  to  the  effect  that  those  who  have  wives  should  be  as  though 
they  had  none.  Both  expressed  the  thought  that  one  should  be  with- 
out distraction  in  order  that  he  might  do  the  service  of  God.     Epic- 

» See  II  Esd.  5:8;6:21. 
3  See  Enoch  99:5. 
*Diss.  11:22.69. 


138  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

tetus  quite  likely  expressed  the  thought  of  the  earlier  Stoics,  and  while 
it  is  not  probable  that  Paul  received  his  idea  from  reading  their  Hterature, 
the  Stoic  philosophy  was  talked  everywhere  and  was  common  property, 
and   Paul  was   undoubtedly   influenced   by   it. 

Among  the  Therapeutae,  which  are  described  by  Philo  in  De  vita 
contemplativa,  men  and  women  lived  together  in  spiritual  relationship. 
It  seems  that  the  men  lived  apart  from  the  women,  but  all  came  together 
for  worship.^  It  is  quite  certain  that  spiritual  marriages  were  common 
in  the  church  during  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  it  is  possible 
that  they  existed  in  Paul's  day,  and  that  he  had  them  in  mind  in  his 
discussion  in  I  Cor.  7:36-38. 

c.  The  life  and  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered. 

In  his  instructions  concerning  the  separation  of  husband  and  wife, 
Paul  made  his  statement  as  the  charge  of  the  Lord:  "But  unto  the 
married  I  give  charge,  yea  not  I,  but  the  Lord"  (I  Cor.  7:10).  The 
command  was  that  neither  should  leave  the  other,  and  in  case  there  was 
separation,  they  should  remain  unmarried  or  be  reconciled  to  each  other. 
Paul  undoubtedly  referred  to  some  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  divorce, 
which  he  had  received,  and  he  beUeved  the  teaching  of  Jesus  settled 
the  question  beyond  dispute.  When  Paul  knew  what  Jesus  had  said 
upon  a  subject  he  had  no  thought  but  that  this  was  final,  hence  he  told 
the  Corinthians  that  if  a  Christian  should  leave  his  wife  he  should  not 
marry  again. 

d.  The  purpose  which  he  sought  to  accomphsh. 

In  forming  his  opinion  concerning  the  marriage  of  virgins,  Paul 
did  not  have  any  teaching  of  the  Lord  to  guide  him,  but  he  expressed 
his  conviction  of  the  subject,  and  he  beheved  he  had  obtained  mercy 
of  the  Lord  to  be  trustworthy  (I  Cor.  7:25,  26).  He  was  not  making  a 
distinction  between  his  own  opinions  and  his  inspired  utterances,  but 
he  was  distinguishing  between  his  own  utterances  and  the  expressed 
commands  of  Christ.  He  did  not  mean  to  state  that  he  was  sometimes 
speaking  with  apostolic  authority  and  sometimes  as  a  private  individual, 
for  he  believed  all  his  teachings  were  given  with  apostolic  authority.  Paul 
knew  of  definite  teachings  of  the  Master  which  answered  some  of  the 
questions  he  was  discussing,  but  he  did  not  know  of  any  teaching  of 

•^  The  Philonic  authorship  of  De  vita  contemplativa  has  long  been  called  in  ques- 
tion, but  the  weight  of  present  scholarship  is  in  the  favor  of  its  genuineness.  For 
a  citation  of  authorities  see  "Shirley  Jackson  Case,"  The  Historicity  of  Jesus,  1912, 
p.  106,  footnote. 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  139 

Jesus  which  covered  other  problems  which  had  been  raised.  He  had 
his  own  convictions  in  regard  to  these,  and  he  believed  he  had  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  and  fairly  represented  him.  He  believed  that  if  Christ  had 
spoken  on  these  subjects  he  would  have  expressed  an  opinion  very  simi- 
lar to  the  one  he  was  giving. 

Paul  received  from  different  sources  the  notions  which  he  com- 
bined to  form  his  conviction  concerning  marriage.  He  received  asceti- 
cal  ideas  from  the  life  and  thought  of  the  world  in  which  he  lived,  and 
he  was  influenced  by  these.  He  received  from  his  Jewish  training 
the  thought  that  the  present  order  was  soon  to  end  in  a  wonderful 
cataclysmic  manner,  and  that  married  women  would  have  special  trials 
at  that  time,  and  he  was  influenced  by  this  notion.  Perhaps  the  great- 
est influence  in  the  formation  of  his  opinion  was  the  purpose  which  he 
had  before  him.  His  objections  to  marriage  were  to  a  large  extent  of 
a  practical  character.  They  were  living  in  times  of  great  distress, 
and  because  of  these  conditions  he  believed  it  was  better  for  a  person 
to  be  single.  He  believed  they  were  living  in  the  last  days,  and  hence 
he  felt  a  person  should  be  as  free  as  possible  from  earthly  entangle- 
ments. Because  of  the  shortness  of  the  time  and  the  urgency  of  the 
work  before  the  Christians,  he  felt  they  should  be  as  free  as  possible 
from  cares.  They  should  be  content  to  remain  in  a  position  that  would 
enable  them  to  devote  all  their  energies  to  the  things  of  God  (I  Cor. 
7:32-34). 

In  I  Corinthians  Paul  seems  to  have  placed  marriage  on  a  very 
low  plane.  He  held  that  it  is  better  to  remain  unmarried,  but  because 
of  fornication,  marriage  is  permitted  in  case  of  necessity.  The  seventh 
chapter  of  I  Corinthians  should  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  purpose 
which  Paul  had  before  him.  He  was  not  writing  a  treatise  on  marriage, 
but  was  answering  some  questions  which  had  been  put  to  him  in  a  par- 
ticular situation.  Corinth  was  noted  for  licentiousness,  and  the  church 
was  not  entirely  free  from  this  immoral  influence,  for  a  member  was 
living  in  unlawful  relationship  with  his  father's  wife  and  the  church 
did  not  exclude  him.  Paul  believed  it  is  good  to  live  a  celibate  life 
but  on  account  of  the  temptations  with  which  they  were  surrounded,  he 
said  it  was  better  for  some  of  them  to  marry. 

In  his  instructions  concerning  the  separation  of  the  Christian  from 
his  pagan  companion,  Paul  was  guided  by  the  practical  situation.  The 
approaching  end  was  so  near  that  each  should  be  content  to  remain 
as  he  was.  It  is  better  for  a  man  who  has  a  wife  not  to  seek  to  be  loosed, 
and  it  is  better  for  a  man  who  does  not  have  a  wife  not  to  seek  one. 


14p  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  V^rRITINGS 

It  was  the  practical  situation  which  guided  him  in  his  discussion  of  the 
remarriage  of  widows.  He  said  it  was  his  judgment  that  they  would 
be  happier  if  they  remained  as  they  were,  and  he  added  that  he  thought 
he  had  the  spirit  of  God  in  that  matter. 

The  Christian's  Relation  to  Slavery 

Slavery  was  a  universal  institution  in  the  Mediterranean  world 
of  Paul's  day.  Many  of  the  Christians  were  either  slaves  or  the  owners 
of  slaves,  and  questions  would  naturally  be  raised  concerning  the  relation 
of  Christian  masters  to  their  slaves  and  of  Christian  slaves  to  their 
masters,  and  Paul  would  inevitably  be  called  upon  to  discuss  these 
important  relationships. 

A  Statement  of  Paul's  Teaching 

It  is  in  Paul's  letter  to  Philemon  where  his  position  is  most  definitely 
stated.  Onesimus,  a  slave  of  Philemon,  had  run  away  from  his  master, 
and  under  the  influence  of  Paul  had  become  a  Christian.  Paul  sent 
him  back  to  his  master  and  at  the  same  time  wrote  Philemon  a  letter 
\  urging  him  to  receive  Onesimus  as  a  brother  beloved.  In  I  Corinthians 
\  Paul  urged  the  Christians  to  remain  in  the  state  in  which  they  were, 
and  if  they  were  bondservants,  they  were  not  to  seek  to  be  free.  Accord- 
ing to  this  principle  there  was  but  one  thing  for  Onesimus  to  do  after 
he  had  become  a  Christian,  and  that  was  to  return  to  his  master.  Paul 
did  not  tell  Philemon  to  free  Onesimus,  nor  did  he  even  intimate  that 
freedom  was  the  proper  thing.  He  said  he  had  sent  him  back  that 
Philemon  might  have  him  forever,  "no  longer  as  a  servant,  but  more 
than  a  servant,  a  brother  beloved. "  Many  writers  and  teachers  have 
held  that,  although  Paul  did  not  openly  condemn  slavery,  he  did  in- 
directly oppose  it.  They  have  maintained  that  he  knew  it  was  wrong 
but  refrained  from  condemning  it  as  a  matter  of  expediency.^  It  is 
not  at  all  likely  that  Paul  beheved  slavery  was  wrong  but  refrained 
from  condemning  it  as  a  matter  of  expediency.    There  is  no  ground  for 

«  George  Matheson  {Spiritual  Development  of  St.  Paul,  1909,  pp.  260  £F.)  holds 
that  when  Paul  wrote  I  Corinthians  he  was  willing  to  let  slavery  alone,  not  because 
it  is  "a  thing  indifferent,  but  because  all  the  institutions  of  time  are  fleeting  and 
transitory";  but  he  thinks  Paul  reahzed  when  he  wrote  the  epistle  to  Philemon,  that 
Christ  was  to  be  king  of  the  secular  world,  and  hence  he  could  not  be  indifferent  to 
slavery.  He  thinks  Paul  knew  Onesimus  was  entitled  to  freedom,  and  the  only  reason 
he  did  not  insist  upon  his  having  it  was  that  such  a  course  would  have  produced  a 
condition  of  anarchy  in  the  Empire. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  141 

the  inference  that  Paul  beHeved  the  principles  he  was  laying  down,  when 
rightly  carried  out,  would  ultimately  abolish  slavery.  It  is  not  prob- 
able that  he  had  any  thought  of  the  destruction  of  slavery.  He  did 
not  attempt  to  justify  it;  neither  did  he  present  any  objections  to  it 
as  an  institution.  He  apparently  accepted  it  without  question  as  one 
of  the  institutions  of  his  day,  and  his  only  purpose  was  to  breathe  the 
Christian  spirit  into  it. 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Conception 

a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

Slavery  had  been  a  custom  of  the  Jews  during  all  their  history, 
but  the  condition  of  the  slave  among  the  Jews  was  much  better  than 
among  many  other  peoples.  According  to  the  law  the  Hebrew  master 
must  not  treat  his  servant  with  rigor  (Lev.  25:43).  The  later  literature 
of  the  Old  Testament  reveals  the  attitude  of  the  Jewish  masters  towards 
their  slaves  as  being  humane  and  almost  brotherly.^  The  master  of  a 
Hebrew  servant  was  required  to  treat  him  in  regard  to  food  and  lodging 
as  he  treated  himself,  and  he  was  admonished  to  deal  with  him  in  all 
things  as  with  a  brother.*^  Slaves  were  admitted  to  the  privileges  of 
worship,  and  the  right  of  Jewish  masters  to  punish  their  slaves  was 
limited.  The  treatment  of  slaves  in  Jewish  households  was  kind  and 
in  many  instances  affectionate.  Many  times  master  and  slave  ate  of 
the  same  food,  and  the  death  of  a  slave  was  mourned  as  if  he  had  been  a 
close  relative.^  Paul  inherited  this  Jewish  attitude  and  it  necessarily 
influenced  him  in  his  Christian  attitude.  The  problem  of  the  relation 
of  master  and  slave  confronted  him  in  every  community  where  he 
labored,  and  the  ideals  which  he  had  as  a  Jew  helped  him  in  his  solution 
of  this  problem. 

b.  The  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

The  condition  of  slaves  in  the  Graeco-Roman  world  was  very  dif- 
ferent from  what  it  was  in  Palestine  among  the  Jews.  The  number  of 
slaves  was  very  large  and  the  treatment  became  more  inhuman  as  the 
numbers  increased.  They  were  punished  with  all  sorts  of  cruelties. 
Juvenal  bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  even  ladies  treated  their  slave 
attendants  with  cruelty.  Aristotle  regarded  a  slave  as  mere  chattel, 
and  Cicero  apologized  for  feeling  "more  than  becoming  grief"  for  the 

'  See  Job  31:13-15;  Pr.  29:19-21. 
•See  Jewish  Ency.  XI,  404. 
» See  H.  D.  B.,  IV,  468. 


142  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

death  of  his  slave  Sositheus.  It  is  said  that  the  slaves  in  the  Roman 
world  outnumbered  the  freemen  two  to  one,  and  many  times  they 
worked  and  slept  in  chains. 

The  Stoics  taught  the  slaves  to  endure  patiently  their  bondage 
and  their  hardships,  for  the  inner  man  could  be  free  even  though  the 
body  were  in  chains.  Paul,  who  had  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  rela- 
tion between  master  and  slave,  must  have  been  moved  by  the  injustice 
of  the  system,  as  he  saw  it  in  the  Roman  world,  and  he  must  have 
longed  to  put  it  on  a  higher  basis  by  means  of  the  gospel  which  he 
preached.  He  found  comfort  in  the  Stoic  attitude  towards  the  system, 
but  he  was  able  to  put  it  on  a  higher  plane,  for  "he  that  was  called  in 
the  Lord  being  a  bondservant,  is  the  Lord's  freedman"  (I  Cor.  7:22). 
c.  The  purpose  which  he  had  in  view. 

Paul's  conception  of  brotherhood,  which  he  inherited  from  Judaism, 
and  which  was  intensified  by  his  Christian  experiences,  made  him  anxious 
to  bring  about  a  condition  of  real  brotherhood  between  master  and 
servant,  when  both  were  in  the  church.  He  told  Philemon  that  he 
had  sent  Onesimus  back  in  order  that  he  might  have  him  forever,  "  no 
longer  as  a  servant,  but  more  than  a  servant,  a  brother  beloved. "  Paul 
was  anxious  that  every  man,  whether  bond  or  free,  should  conduct  him- 
self in  the  manner  that  would  bring  glory  to  the  cause  of  Christ.  Guided 
by  this  purpose  he  told  servants,  not  to  seek  liberty,  but  to  obey  their 
masters;  and  he  said  liberty  is  of  but  Uttle  consequence  anyway,  for 
the  time  is  short  and  the  Christian  slave  is  Christ's  freedman  even 
now.  He  told  masters  to  treat  their  servants  kindly  and  regard  them 
as  brothers. 

Philemon,  verses  8  and  9,  would  indicate  that  Paul  felt  he  had  the 
right,  as  an  apostle,  to  command  Philemon  to  receive  Onesimus  in  the 
right  spirit.^''  Paul  virtually  declared  that  although  he  had  boldness 
in  Christ  to  command  Philemon  to  do  the  things  which  he  ought  yet 
because  of  his  love  for  Philemon,  he  beseeches  rather  than  commands. 
He  might  command  as  an  apostle,  but  he  beseeches  as  Paul  the  aged, 
a  prisoner  of  Christ  Jesus,  and  he  intimated  that  he  had  confidence 
that  Philemon  would  heed  his  entreaty. 

^"  M.  R.  Vincent  says:  "kirLTaaaeiv,  *to  enjoin'  or  'to  command, '  is  used  rather  of 
commanding  which  attaches  to  a  definite  office  and  relates  tc  permanent  obligations     J 
imder  the  office,  than  for  special  injunctions  for  particular  occasions"  (See  Int.  Crit. 
Com.  Philem.). 


conception  of  authority  in  the  pauline  writings  143 

The  Christian's  Relation  to  the  State 
Statement  of  Paul's  Teaching 

Paul  did  not  discuss  the  character  of  the  Roman  Empire,  nor  of  the 
Roman  Emperors,  but  in  stating  the  Christian's  relation  to  the  state 
he  did  reveal  his  thought  of  organized  government.  This  is  brought 
out  most  strikingly  in  Rom.  13:1-7.  He  admonished  every  Roman  to 
be  in  subjection  to  the  higher  powers,  and  that  undoubtedly  represented 
the  attitude  which  he  desired  all  people  to  have  towards  the  state. 
Paul  placed  this  loyalty  on  the  highest  basis.  The  Christian  should 
be  loyal  to  the  state  because  "  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God. " 
If  the  state  is  a  divine  institution,  then  the  one  who  resists  the  state  j 
withstands  the  ordinance  of  God.  If  the  state  is  a  divine  institution  | 
then  the  one  who  is  disloyal  to  the  state  is  disloyal  to  God,  and  he  shall  I' 
receive  judgment  for  his  disloyalty.  Notwithstanding  the  character 
of  many  of  the  Roman  officials,  Paul  regarded  them  as  ministers  of 
God  for  good.  He  believed  their  right  to  punish  was  a  divine  right,  for 
it  was  to  restrain  evil  doers — *'He  is  a  minister  of  God,  an  avenger  to 
him  that  doeth  evil."  Paul  held  that  Christians  should  obey  the 
rulers,  not  merely  to  escape  the  wrath  that  follows  disobedience,  but  for 
"  conscience'  sake. "  The  Christian's  own  sense  of  duty  tells  him  that  he 
ought  to  do  what  the  law  requires,  and  he  should  always  be  true  to  his 
own  convictions  of  right. 

Paul  taught  that  the  Christian,  as  a  member  of  the  state,  should 
help  to  support  it  in  every  way.  One  of  his  fundamental  principles 
was  that  God's  ministers  are  worthy  of  their  hire,  and  according  to 
this  principle,  officials  should  be  supported,  for  they  are  God's  ministers, 
giving  their  time  in  the  interest  of  the  public  welfare.  Inasmuch  as 
these  officials  are  God  ministers  for  man's  good.  Christians  should  pay 
tribute  to  help  support  them.  The  Christian  should  be  loyal  to  the 
state  in  every  way  and  render  to  all  officials  their  due.  He  should 
render  "tribute  to  whom  tribute  is  due;  custom  to  whom  custom; 
fear  to  whom  fear;  honor  to  whom  honor." 

Sources  from  which  Paul  Derived  his  Conception 

a.  His  Jewish  inheritance. 

Paul  could  scarcely  have  been  influenced  by  any  conception  which 
came  to  him  from  purely  Jewish  sources,  for  the  Jews  were  opposed  to 
domination  by  a  foreign  power,  and  they  came  to  look  upon  these  nations 


144  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

which  oppressed  them  as  being  either  the  agencies  of  Satan,  or  the 
means  God  was  using  to  punish  his  people  for  their  sins.  Much  of  the 
imagery  of  apocalyptic  literature  had  its  origin  in  their  hatred  of  these 
foreign  powers.  All  the  hatred  which  the  Jews  had  for  these  foreign 
oppressors  was  transferred  to  Rome  when  Judea  became  subject  to 
that  nation.  The  Roman  Empire  was  to  the  Jewish  mind  the  incarna- 
tion of  cruelty  and  oppression,  and  the  loyal  Jew  dreamed  of  the  day 
when  that  nation   should  be  destroyed. 

The  Jew  regarded  the  Roman  state  as  the  embodiment  of  evil, 
hence  he  obeyed  the  officials  as  a  matter  of  necessity.  He  paid  tribute 
and  custom  because  he  could  not  help  it,  but  he  looked  forward  to  the 
time  when  God  would  overthrow  their  greatest  enemy.  That  is  the 
import  of  the  imagery  in  Revelation.  Rome,  which  is  identified  with 
the  nation,  is  "Babylon  the  great,"  and  the  emperor  is  "the  beast." 

b.  The  Hfe  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world. 

Paul's  life  in  the  Empire  during  his  early  days  at  Tarsus,  and  later 
in  all  parts  of  the  East,  made  him  respect  and  love  the  state.  He  was 
a  Roman  citizen,  and  according  to  Acts,  boasted  of  that  fact,  and  was 
helped  repeatedly  by  it.  At  the  time  Romans  was  written  Christianity 
bad  not  been  distinguished  from  Judaism  by  Roman  officials,  hence 
Christians  were  exempt  from  Emperor-worship.  Paul  realized  that  it 
was  the  Roman  state  which  made  it  possible  for  him  and  other  mission- 
aries to  go  from  province  to  province  and  preach  the  gospel,  and  accord- 
ing to  Acts,  he  had  on  several  occasions  been  protected  by  Roman 
officials  from  attacks  by  Jewish  mobs.  The  life  and  thought  of  this  larger 
world  in  which  Paul  lived  made  him  feel  that  this  strong  power  was 
necessary  for  the  well-being  of  society  and  that  it  was  ordained  by 
God.  The  restraining  power  of  the  law  on  evil-doers,  as  he  had  witnessed 
it,  convinced  him  that  these  Roman  officials,  even  though  they  were 
corrupt,  were  God's  ministers  to  restrain  evil-doers. 

c.  The  life  and  thought  of  the  church  into  which  he  entered. 

It  is  very  probable  that  the  primitive  church,  which  was  largely 
Jewish,  had  the  Jewish  conception  of  the  Roman  state;  hence  Paul  could 
not  have  received  his  broader  conception  from  that  source.  He  may 
have  been  influenced  by  the  tradition  of  the  broader  attitude  expressed 
by  Jesus,  for  there  is  a  striking  resemblance  between  Paul's  principle— 
"Render  tribute  to  whom  tribute  is  due,"  and  the  statement  of  Jesus— 
"Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's." 

d.  The  purpose  he  sought  to  accomplish. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Paul's  discussion  of  the  Christian's 
relation  to  the  state  was  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans.    Paul  must  have 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  145 

realized  that  sooner  or  later  the  Roman  state  would  distinguish  be- 
tween Christianity  and  Judaism,  and  he  was  anxious  that  Christians 
should  have  the  most  possible  liberty  when  that  time  should  come. 
The  attitude  of  the  state  towards  the  church  in  Rome  would  determine 
its  attitude  throughout  the  Empire,  and  in  order  that  the  attitude 
might  be  as  favorable  as  possible,  he  was  anxious  that  the  Roman 
Christians  should  be  loyal. 

It  is  also  significant  that  the  Christian's  loyalty  to  the  state  should 
have  been  emphasized  in  this  letter  in  which  Christian  liberty  is  exalted. 
The  spirit  of  antinomianism  was  developing  in  some  Pauline  com- 
munities. There  were  those  who  distorted  their  liberty  and  insisted 
that  Christ  had  made  them  free  from  all  law,  and  hence  they  could  do 
as  they  pleased.  It  may  be  that  Paul  was  afraid  of  the  development 
of  this  antinomian  spirit  in  Rome,  and  to  ward  it  off  he  emphasized 
the  fact  that  they  should  render  obedience  to  the  powers  that  be.  Paul 
was  trying  to  meet  a  practical  situation.  These  Christians  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Roman  State,  and  he  w^anted  to  save  them  from  the  perils 
to  which  they  were  exposed,  and  help  to  make  their  lives  count  for  the 
future  of  the  church. 

SUMMARY 

In  discussing  the  Christian's  relation  to  the  world  in  which  he  lived, 
Paul  emphasized  his  relation  to  marriage,  to  slavery,  and  to  the  State. 
In  the  development  of  his  thought  about  these  various  relationships, 
Paul  was  influenced  from  many  different  sources.  The  convictions 
which  he  inherited  from  his  Jewish  training  formed  the  basis  of  his 
thinking  on  these  subjects,  and  this  was  modified  by  his  contact  with 
the  life  and  thought  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world.  The  ideas  which 
prevailed  in  the  church  into  which  he  entered  had  some  influence  upon 
him,  and  the  purpose  which  he  had  before  him  was  an  important  factor. 
One  of  the  most  important  of  all  the  influences  which  helped  to  deter- 
mine his  thought  of  the  various  relationships  which  the  Christian  has 
in  the  world  was  the  Christian  life  as  he  had  experienced  it,  and  as  he 
had  observed  it  in  others.  The  Christian  has  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
within  as  his  guide,  and  in  his  relation  to  marriage,  to  slavery,  and  to 
the  state,  he  should  pursue  the  course  which  is  in  accord  with  the  Spirit's 
leading.  The  streams  of  influence  which  came  from  all  these  various 
sources  produced  a  conviction  in  Paul's  mind  which  he  believed  should 
control  the  church.  He  believed  he  expressed  the  will  of  Christ  and 
that  he  had  a  right  to  command  obedience. 


CHAPTER  VI 

IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    SOURCES    FROM    WHICH    PAUL 
DERIVED  TRUTH 

A  careful  study  of  Paul's  writings  must  convince  one  that  he  was 
not  dependent  upon  any  one  source  for  the  material  which  became  a 
part  of  his  religious  thinking.  He  was  not  controlled  by  any  one  in- 
fluence in  reaching  his  conclusions  concerning  right  and  duty.  He 
was  influenced  by  all  the  ideas  which  he  inherited  from  the  past,  and 
by  the  life  and  thought  of  the  world  in  which  he  lived.  Some  writers 
have  failed  to  understand  Paul,  because  they  have  sought  to  explain 
everything  in  his  teaching  as  having  been  derived  from  Judaism.  They 
have  assumed  that  because  lie  grew  up  in  the  Jewish  rehgion  and  was 
a  Pharisee  of  the  Pharisees,  and  consequently  inherited  aU  the  Jewish 
conceptions  of  religion,  that  his  thought  of  after  years  can  be  explained 
on  the  basis  of  his  early  training.  Other  scholars  have  misunderstood 
Paul,  because  they  have  assumed  that  the  fundamental  influence  in  the 
development  of  his  thinking  was  the  life  and  thought  of  the  Graeco- 
Roman  world  in  which  he  lived  and  labored  for  a  long  time  before 
he  wrote  any  of  his  letters.  There  are  others  who  have  failed  to  under- 
stand Paul,  because  they  have  ignored  his  inheritance  from  the  past 
and  from  the  world  in  which  he  hved,  and  have  sought  to  explain  every- 
thing on  the  basis  of  his  Christian  experience.  They  feel  that  inasmuch 
as  he  became  a  new  man  when  he  became  a  Christian,  he  must  have 
completely  shook  off  all  the  influences  of  Judaism.  They  felt  that  his 
antipathy  to  the  pagan  rehgions  and  to  the  thought  of  the  Greek  world 
was  so  marked  that  he  could  not  have  been  influenced  by  them. 

A  careful  study  of  Paul's  thought  reveals  the  fact  that  he  received 
from  many  different  sources  the  ideas  which  became  a  part  of  his  Chris- 
tian thinking.  Some  of  these  ideas  were  used  in  substantially  the  same 
form  in  which  they  were  received,  some  of  them  were  modified,  and 
some  of  them  were  entirely  changed. 

Paul's  Estimate  or  Experience 

A  thorough  investigation  of  Paul's  writings  must  convince  one 
that  the  standard  by  which  he  determined  truth  was  what  we  call 
experience.     Experience  is  with  us  a  broad  and  indefinite  term,  and 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  147 

Paul  undoubtedly  interpreted  it  differently  from  what  we  do.  It  is  not 
probable  that  Paul  attempted  to  determine  the  various  sources  from 
which  he  derived  truth,  or  the  authoritative  value  of  these  sources. 
It  is  not  probable  that  our  conception  of  experience  is  the  same  as 
was  that  of  Paul,  but  it  is  possible  to  analyze  his  thought  and  state 
it  in  terms  of  our  own  thinking.  We  are  not  able  to  understand  Paul 
until  we  do  this. 

The  Experience  due  to  Supernatural  Influnece 

Paul  felt  that  there  was  a  divine  power  which  acted  upon  him  from 
without,  and  this  was  always  authoritative  for  him.  He  interpreted 
this  experience  as  the  revelation  or  the  manifestation  of  God,  and  he 
believed  that  no  one  had  the  right  to  question  the  truth  which  came 
through  this  revelation. 
a.  His  conversion-experience. 

Paul's  conversion-experience  was  something  that  was  to  him  very 
real,  and  it  stood  out  above  all  the  other  experiences  of  his  life.  He 
had  no  doubts  about  the  reaUty  of  it,  and  he  believed  truth  came  to 
him  at  that  time  as  a  revelation  from  heaven,  and  hence  this  was  fun- 
damental in  his  Christian  thinking.  He  accepted  the  convictions  which 
came  to  him  through  his  conversion-experience  on  the  authority  of  a 
revelation  from  God. 

Paul  became  convinced  that  Jesus  of  Nazereth  was  the  Messiah  of 
God,  and  he  interpreted  the  experiences  which  led  him  to  that  convic- 
tion as  a  revelation  from  God,  and  he  accepted  the  conviction  on  the 
authority  of  a  revelation.  He  had  formerly  regarded  Jesus  as  an  im- 
postor, and  he  had  believed  his  disciples  were  deluded  men.  He  could 
see  no  connection  between  JeSbus  and  the  Messiah  for  whom  the  Jews 
were  looking,  and  he  had  consecrated  his  life  to  the  task  of  crushing 
out  the  movement  which  the  impostor  had  inaugurated.  But  in  the 
Ught  of  those  experiences  which  he  interpreted  as  God  revealing  his  Son 
in  him,  he  identified  Jesus,  whom  the  Christians  were  proclaiming  as 
Lord,  with  the  Messiah.  He  had  no  doubt  about  this  identity,  and  he 
accepted  it  on  the  authority  of  a  revelation.  Paul  believed  the  Christ 
whom  he  had  thus  come  to  know  was  his  Lord  and  that  all  men  owed  him 
allegiance.  He  had  no  doubts  about  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  or  his 
claim  upon  his  own  Ufe,  for  God  had  made  it  known  to  him  through  revel- 
ation. 

Paul  had  come  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  living.  There  was  no 
doubt  in  his  mind  concerning  this,  for  he  beHeved  Christ  had  appeared 


148  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

to  him,  and  he  accepted  it  as  a  fact  on  the  authority  of  a  revelation 
from  God.  This  appearance  was  so  real  that  he  classed  it  along  with 
the  traditional  appearances  to  the  other  apostles,  and  in  regard  to 
personal  relationship  with  the  risen  Lord,  he  was  not  a  whit  behind 
the  chief  est  of  the  apostles. 

When  Paul  came  to  beheve  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  in  his 
Messiahship,  he  was  led  to  the  conviction  that  his  death  was  a  part 
of  the  divine  plan,  and  that  it  was  connected  in  some  way  with  salva- 
tion. The  death  of  Jesus  was  one  of  the  main  reasons  why  Paul  was 
certain  that  he  could  not  have  been  the  Messiah.  There  was  no  place 
in  his  Jewish  conception  of  the  Messiah  for  suffering,  and  the  thought 
of  his  dying  at  the  hands  of  enemies  was  foreign  to  him.  Instead  of 
there  being  any  possibiUty  of  his  being  overcome  by  his  enemies  and 
put  to  death,  he  was  to  be  so  great  that  he  could  destroy  his  enemies 
by  the  word  of  his  mouth.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not  only  overcome 
by  his  enemies,  but  he  was  nailed  in  dishonor  upon  a  cross.  The  Jews 
boasted  of  that  fact,  and  the  disciples  had  to  admit  it.  That  fact  could 
have  had  but  one  significance  for  Saul,  the  Pharisee,  and  that  was  that 
Jesus  had  been  made  a  curse.  But  when  God  revealed  his  Son  in  him, 
and  he  realized  that  the  one  who  had  died  upon  the  cross  was  the 
Messiah,  he  then  understood  that  his  death  must  have  a  place  in  the 
divine  plan.  He  felt  that  it  was  vitally  connected  with  man's  salvation. 
By  his  death  on  the  cross  Christ  had  been  made  a  curse,  but  it  was  for 
man's  sake.  This  must  have  dawned  upon  Paul  suddenly,  and  it  be- 
came fundamental  in  the  development  of  his  conception  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  and  he  accepted  it  on  the  authority  of  a  revelation. 

Paul's  conversion-experience  convinced  him  that  justification  is 
through  faith  in  Christ.  He  had  formerly  believed  that  justification 
was  on  the  basis  of  law,  and  had  earnestly  tried  to  find  victory  on  that 
basis,  but  he  had  failed.  He  was  a  wretched  man,  for  he  did  the  things 
that  he  ought  not  to  have  done,  and  failed  to  do  the  things  which  he 
should  have  done.  But  when  God  revealed  his  Son  in  him,  and  he 
realized  that  the  one  who  had  died  upon  a  cross  was  God's  Messiah  and 
that  his  death  was  a  part  of  the  plan  of  God  and  was  connected  with 
man's  salvation,  he  felt  at  once  that  man  is  justified  through  faith  in 
Christ.  This  conception  must  have  come  to  Paul  like  a  flash  out  of 
heaven,  but  it  was  so  real  that  it  was  authoritative  for  him.  He  was 
a  changed  man,  and  he  referred  to  this  change  as  though  it  had  been 
sudden.  Paul  felt  that  a  new  force  had  entered  into  him  which  had 
completely  transformed  him.    Old  things  had  passed  away  and  he  looked 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  149 

out  upon  a  new  world.  He  was  as  one  who  had  died  and  had  been  raised 
to  life  again.  Christ  had  suddenly  laid  hold  upon  him  and  had  changed 
him  from  a  persecutor  into  one  of  the  persecuted.  He  had  come  into 
the  kingdom  as  one  abortively  born,  and  at  that  time  he  had  laid  hold 
upon  Christ  by  faith. 

Paul  believed  he  had  been  called  to^  be  an  apostle  by  a  revelation 
from  God.  The  possession  of  his  gospel  was  his  call  to  preach  it,  and 
he  declared  that  his  gospel  came  through  revelation.  He  said  he  did 
not  receive  it  from  man,  nor  was  he  taught  it,  "but  it  came  through 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  conviction  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah 
and  that  a  man  is  justified  through  faith  in  him  constituted  his  gospel, 
and  he  believed  that  was  made  known  to  him  by  a  revelation  from 
heaven.  Paul  declared  that  he  was  "an  apostle,  not  from  men,  neither 
through  man,  but  through  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father,"  and  it  is 
evident  that  he  connected  his  call  to  be  an  apostle  with  those  experiences 
which  he  interpreted  as  a  revelation  from  God.  Taul  felt  that  his  call 
was  definite.  Others  might  question  it,  but  there  were  no  doubts  in 
his  mind,  for  necessity  had  been  laid  upon  him  by  his  divine  call.^  Paul 
could  designate  his  gospel  as  the  gospel  of  God,  because  God  had  re- 
vealed it  to  him.  He  did  not  need  apostolic  sanction,  for  he  had  received 
his  call  from  heaven,  and  it  was  so  definite  that  he  could  not  resist  it, 
and  persecutions  could  not  stop  him  in  his  efforts  to  fulfill  the  mission 
to  which  the  call  had  committed  him. 

Not  only  did  Paul  believe  his  apostolic  claim  had  the  authority 
of  a  revelation  from  heaven,  but  he  also  believed  his  apostleship  to  the 
Gentiles  rested  upon  the  same  authority.  He  could  say  it  was  the 
good  pleasure  of  God  "to  reveal  his  Son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach 
him  among  the  Gentiles  "  (Gal.  1 :15, 16).  When  Paul  became  convinced 
that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  in  Christ  he  realized  that  the  gospel 
was  for  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  for  the  Jews,  and  the  revelation  of  that 
fact  was  his  call  to  become  Christ's  ambassador  to  the  Gentile  world. 
The  call  was  as  imperative  as  if  he  had  heard  a  voice  shouting  it  from 
the  skies.  That  conviction  which  came  through  the  revelation  of  Christ 
was  absolute  and  final, 
b.  Revelations  and  visions  and  ecstatic  experiences. 

Paul  believed  he  was  guided  in  important  crises  in  his  life  by  revela- 
tions, and  these  revelations,  regardless  of  what  we  may  consider  them 

^  James  H.  Campbell  (Paul,  the  Mystic,  1908,  p.  60)  says  the  proof  that  Paul 
possessed  the  authority  to  preach  "did  not  consist  in  a  parchment  carried  in  the  hand, 
but  in  the  heart." 


150  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

to  have  been,  were  interpreted  as  the  voice  of  God  directing  him  in  the 
course  in  which  he  ought  to  go.  When  the  Judaizers  were  causing 
trouble  in  the  PauUne  churches,  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  directed  by 
revelation  to  go  to  Jerusalem  and  secure  the  sanction  of  the  leaders. 
Paul  did  not  explain  what  the  revelation  was,  but  he  was  definite  in  his 
statement  that  it  was  a  revelation  which  prompted  him  to  go.  He  and 
the  leaders  at  Antioch  were  troubled  over  the  condition  which  resulted 
from  the  activity  of  the  Judaizers.  They  were  anxious  about  the  course 
which  they  should  pursue  when  Paul  had  a  revelation  in  which  he  was 
directed  to  go  to  Jerusalem  and  lay  the  whole  matter  before  the  leaders. 
That  experience  was  something  that  was  very  real  to  Paul,  and  he 
interpreted  it  as  the  voice  of  God  commanding  him  to  do  what  he  would 
not  otherwise  have  done.  At  the  time  of  his  conversion  he  purposely 
avoided  the  leaders  at  Jerusalem,  and  instead  of  going  where  he  might 
have  seen  them,  he  went  into  Arabia.  After  three  years  he  did  go  to 
Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  but  with  the  exception  of  James,  he  did  not  see 
any  of  the  other  leaders,  and  it  is  evident  that  he  had  not  planned  to 
visit  James.  What  Paul  meant  to  emphasize  was  that  he  did  not  seek 
a  conference  with  the  apostolic  group.  After  fourteen  years,  however, 
he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  with  Barnabas,  and  the  purpose  of  his  going 
was  to  have  a  conference  with  the  apostolic  leaders  to  secure  their  sanc- 
tion to  the  work  he  was  doing.  Paul's  statement  plainly  indicates  that 
his  course  on  this  occasion  was  different  from  what  it  would  have  been 
if  he  had  followed  his  own  incUnations,  and  the  influence  which  caused 
him  to  act  as  he  did  was  a  revelation  from  God.  That  experience  was 
very  real  to  him.  He  beUeved  that  God  had  in  some  manner  spoken 
to  him,  and  he  obeyed  without  any  hesitation. 

Paul  not  only  beUeved  God  guided  him  in  special  crises  by  revela- 
tions, but  he  also  believed  there  were  times  when  the  divine  Spirit  laid 
hold  upon  him,  and  lifted  him  out  of  himself,  and  caused  him  to  do 
things  which  were  not  the  result  of  his  own  initiative.  He  seems  to 
have  regarded  these  experiences  as  sacred,  and  he  scarcely  ever  alluded 
to  them,  and  when  he  did  make  reference  to  them  he  apologized  for 
having  done  so.  In  one  of  his  letters  to  the  Corinthians  he  removed 
all  barriers  and  boasted  of  what  he  had  done  and  had  endured  for  Christ's 
sake  (See  II  Cor.  11:16-38).  After  he  had  boasted  of  what  he  had 
given  up  for  the  sake  of  his  Master  and  of  the  persecutions  through  which 
he  had  passed,  he  said  by  way  of  apology:  "I  must  needs  glory,  though 
it  is  not  expedient"  (II  Cor.  12:1);  then  he  came  to  what  was  to  him 
the  most  sacred  of  all  these  experiences:  "But  I  will  come  to  visions 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  151 

and  revelations  of  the  Lord."  He  mentioned  but  one  of  these  visions, 
and  he  said  it  was  not  lawful  to  utter  the  unspeakable  words  which 
were  revealed  to  him  in  that  wonderful  experience.  The  experience 
which  he  had  in  mind  was  so  vivid  that  he  remembered  the  exact  time; 
it  was  fourteen  years  ago.  He  could  not  explain  just  what  had  happened 
to  him  at  that  time.  God  only  knows  whether  he  remained  in  the  body 
or  whether  he  was  lifted  out  of  it  for  the  time  being;  but  he  knew  that 
"he  was  caught  up  into  Paradise,  and  heard  unspeakable  words." 
While  he  did  not  state  what  the  revelation  was  which  was  made  to  him 
at  that  time,  he  did  intimate  that  it  was  exceeding  great,  and  that  under 
ordinary  circumstances  it  would  have  puffed  him  up;  but  in  order  that 
he  might  not  be  exalted  over  much  by  reason  of  the  "exceeding  greatness 
of  the  revelation, "  there  was  given  to  him  a  thorn  in  the  flesh.  Regard- 
less of  what  that  thorn  in  the  flesh  may  have  been,  it  is  evident  that  Paul 
connected  it  with  the  vision,  and  he  regarded  it  as  a  messenger  of  Satan 
to  buffet  him. 

Paul  received  special  comfort  and  special  assurance  in  times  of 
severe  trials.  When  Satan  had  buffetted  him  through  the  thorn  in  his 
flesh,  he  asked  to  have  the  thorn  removed.  It  was  not  removed,  but 
he  heard  the  voice  of  God  saying,  "My  grace  is  sufficient  for  thee" 
(II  Cor.  12:9).  Paul  did  not  say  how  this  voice  came  to  him,  but  it 
must  have  been  through  some  experience  which  was  as  real  to  him  as 
if  he  had  heard  the  uttered  words. 

Paul  evidently  regarded  some  of  the  spiritual  gifts  as  the  result 
of  an  immediate  possession  of  the  individual  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  His 
conviction  was  based  upon  his  own  experience,  for  he  had  seen  these 
manifestations  in  others  and  he  had  experienced  them  in  his  own  life. 
He  urged  the  Corinthians  not  to  forbid  speaking  in  tongues,  because 
that  was  a  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  they  would  be  resisting  the  Spirit  if 
they  forbade  the  expression  of  that  which  the  Spirit  prompted.  Paul 
knew  from  his  own  experience  that  speaking  with  tongues  was  a  gift 
of  the  Spirit,  for  he  spake  with  tongues  more  than  any  of  them.  He 
felt  that  he  possessed  the  Spirit  of  Christ  to  such  a  degree  that  he  knew 
the  divine  will;  hence  he  considered  his  instructions  concerning  speaking 
with  tongues  as  the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  and  he  did  not  permit 
others  to  pit  their  claims  against  the  things  he  was  writing. 

Paul  regarded  the  gift  of  prophecy  as  being  a  special  manifestation 
of  the  divine  Spirit.  The  message  which  the  prophet  gave  when  under 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit  was  regarded  as  a  revelation  from  God.  Paul 
taught  that  even  prophets  should  be  subject  to  the  Spirit,  and,  if  while 


152  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY- IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

one  prophet  was  speaking,  a  revelation  should  be  made  to  another  sit- 
ting by,  the  first  must  keep  silence.  The  fact  that  the  Spirit  had  begun 
to  use  another  prophet  was  evident  proof  to  Paul  that  God  was  through 
with  the  first;  hence  he  should  keep  silence  and  give  the  Spirit  the  right 
of  way. 

Paul  believed  God  had  manifested  himself  to  him  in  conversion 
and  through  visions  and  revelations  and  ecstatic  experiences,  and  he 
regarded  this  expression  of  the  divine  will  as  authoritative.  He  beUeved 
God  was  manifesting  himself  to  others  in  this  immediate  way,  and  he 
felt  that  this  divine  will  should  not  be  resisted. 

The  Experience  of  Conscience,  or  Moral  Judgment 

Paul  believed  God  was  revealing  himself  to  men  through  their 
consciences,  and  he  regarded  this  expression  of  the  divine  will  as  authori- 
tative, and  he  felt  that  men  were  without  excuse  if  they  violated  it. 
Paul  taught  that  the  Gentiles,  who  do  not  have  the  revealed  law  of 
the  Jews,  do  by  nature  the  things  of  the  law.  He  taught  that  they 
are  "the  law  unto  themselves;  in  that  they  show  the  work  of  the  law 
written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  bearing  witness  therewith, 
and  their  thoughts  one  with  another  accusing  or  else  excusing  them" 
i(Rom.  2:14,  15).  Paul  believed  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong  which  the 
Gentiles  had  was  the  result  of  a  revelation  of  God  to  them  through 
their  consciences,  and  that  this  revelation  was  authoritative,  and  that 
they  would  be  judged  by  it.  According  to  Paul's  thinking,  the  failure 
of  the  Gentiles  was  not  due  to  the  fact  that  they  did  not  know  the  right, 
for  God  had  placed  the  law  of  right  in  their  hearts.  Some  of  the  Gen- 
tiles had  lived  up  to  this  law,  and  their  uncircumcision  had  become 
circumcision;  but  most  of  them  had  disregarded  the  law  in  their  hearts, 
and  as  a  result,  they  had  lost  the  light  which  they  had  formerly  possessed. 
They  were  responsible  for  their  failure  to  Uve  up  to  the  law  which  God 
had  revealed  to  them,  and  they  would  be  judged  accordingly. 

Paul  taught  that  Christians  were  to  be  guided  in  their  conduct 
by  the  law  of  conscience.  He  told  the  Corinthians  there  was  no  harm 
in  eating  meat  that  had  been  sacrificed  to  idols,  if  there  was  no  violation 
of  conscience  in  what  they  did.  He  said  an  idol  is  nothing  and  the 
meat  that  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice  to  it  was  not  different  from  ordi- 
nary meat;  hence  the  only  harm  that  could  come  to  one  in  eating  it 
would  be  in  violating  his  conscience.  That  being  true,  he  urged  the 
Corinthians  to  eat  whatever  was  sold  in  the  shambles,  and  ask  no  ques- 
tions for   conscience'   sake.     He  advised   them,   when  in  attendance 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  153 

at  a  feast  to  which  they  had  been  bidden,  to  eat  what  was  set  before 
them  and  ask  no  questions  for  conscience'  sake.  He  urged  them  to 
be  true  to  conscience  under  all  circumstances,  and  by  not  asking  ques- 
tions they  would  be  relieved  from  conscientious  scruples. 

Paul  taught  that  moral  judgment,  or  the  sense  of  right,  was  very 
important  in  determining  duty.  In  defending  his  right  to  claim  support 
from  the  churches  where  he  was  laboring,  he  appealed  to  the  Chris- 
tian's sense  of  right.  He  asked  if  he  and  Barnabas  did  not  have  the 
same  rights  in  this  respect  as  the  other  apostles  had.  To  emphasize 
this  sense  of  right  he  referred  to  the  soldier  who  is  paid  for  his  service, 
and  to  the  husbandman  who  eats  the  fruit  of  the  vineyard  which  he 
plants,  and  to  the  shepherd  who  eats  of  the  milk  of  the  flock  which 
he  feeds.  He  implied  that  moral  judgment  should  grant  him  the  same 
rights  that  the  soldier,  or  the  husbandman,  or  the  shepherd  enjoys. 

In  attempting  to  prove  to  the  Corinthians  that  a  woman  ought 
not  to  pray  with  her  head  unveiled,  Paul  appealed  to  their  moral  judg- 
ment, or  to  their  sense  of  propriety.  He  asked  if  it  was  seemly  to  them 
for  a  woman  to  pray  to  God  unveiled,  and  he  implied  by  his  question 
that  a  woman  ought  not  to  violate  the  moral  sense  of  the  community. 
Paul's  own  feelings  played  an  important  part  in  his  argument.  He  had 
been  accustomed  to  seeing  modest  women  veiled,  and  for  a  woman  to 
be  unveiled  seemed  to  him  the  same  as  if  she  were  shaven.  Paul  appealed 
to  the  custom  of  the  churches  as  an  expression  of  this  moral  judgment. 
The  fact  that  there  was  no  custom  in  the  churches  of  God  of  a  woman 
praying  or  prophsying  unveiled  ought,  he  believed,  to  prevent  any 
woman  from  attempting  it;  and  he  argued  that  if  she  should  attempt  it, 
she  would  be  going  contrary  to  the  moral  sense,  not  only  of  that  com- 
munity, but  of  the  whole  church. 

In  his  effort  to  get  the  Corinthians  to  exclude  the  fornicator,  Paul 
appealed  to  their  moral  judgment.  He  told  them  the  fornication 
that  was  reported  in  Corinth  was  of  such  a  character  that  it  would  not 
be  found  even  among  the  non-Christian  Gentiles.  The  moral  judg- 
ment, not  merely  of  the  Corinthian  Christians,  but  of  the  pagan  Gen- 
tiles as  well,  would  condemn  the  man.  In  rebuking  the  Corinthians  for 
retaining  the  fornicator  in  their  fellowship  and  for  glorying  in  what  they 
were  doing,  Paul  appealed  to  their  moral  sense.  He  asked  them  if  they 
did  not  know  that  a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump.  He  asked  if 
they  were  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  this  one  man  would  contaminate 
the  whole  church,  and  that  being  true,  they  should  purge  themselves 


154  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

from  the  dangerous  leaven.  Paul  regarded  the  moral  sense  as  authori- 
tative, and  he  urged  the  Corinthians  to  act  in  accordance  with  it. 

In  urging  the  Corinthians  to  give  for  the  support  of  the  poor  at 
Jerusalem,  Paul  appealed  to  their  sense  of  duty.  He  referred  to  the 
gifts  of  the  Macedonian  churches,  and  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  they  had  given  beyond  their  ability,  and  the  explanation  of  their 
liberality  was  that  they  had  first  given  themselves  to  the  Lord.  While 
Paul  did  not  state  it  in  so  many  words,  he  evidently  meant  to  imply 
that  the  Corinthians  would  give  to  the  Lord's  poor,  if  they  gave  them- 
selves to  the  Lord,  for  their  sense  of  right  would  then  demand  it.  The 
giving  would  be  proof  of  the  sincerity  of  their  love.  Paul  commended 
the  Corinthians  for  having  planned  to  give,  and  he  urged  them  to  com- 
plete what  they  had  begun.  He  appealed  to  their  sense  of  right  in 
urging  them  to  give  as  they  had  been  prospered. 

Paul  regarded  conscience,  or  the  moral  judgment,  as  the  means  by 
which  the  divine  will  was  revealed,  and  the  revelation  of  the  divine 
will  was  always  authoritative  for  him.  He  believed  God  was  leading 
men  through  these  inner  impulses,  and  to  refuse  to  obey  these  inner 
promptings  was  to  quench  the  Spirit.  Paul  did  not  seek  to  dominate 
the  faith  of  men,  but  he  sought  to  commend  the  truth  he  was  teaching 
to  "every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God"  (II  Cor.  4:2).  He  told 
the  Corinthians  he  was  speaking  to  wise  men,  and  he  asked  them  to  use 
their  judgment  in  determining  the  truthfulness  of  what  he  was  saying 
(I  Cor.   10:15). 

The  Experience  of  his  Normal  Convictions 

Paul  believed  his  convictions  were  expressions  of  the  will  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  will  of  the  Spirit  was  always  authoritative  for  him.  He 
believed  his  convictions  could  be  reUed  upon  because  they  were  the 
result  of  the  Spirit's  activity.  This  is  illustrated  by  his  teaching  con- 
cerning marriage.  His  advice  had  been  sought  concerning  the  mar- 
riage of  virgins.  There  was  no  custom  of  the  churches  that  could  serve 
as  a  guide  in  the  advice  he  should  give,  and  he  did  not  know  of  any 
commandment  of  the  Lord  that  had  any  bearing  on  the  situation; 
but  he  did  have  a  conviction  on  the  subject,  and  he  gave  this  as  his 
judgment,  and  he  believed  he  had  "obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be 
trustworthy."  Conscience  could  not  serve  as  a  guide  in  settling  this 
question,  for  there  would  be  no  harm  in  marrying.  In  fact  it  was 
Paul's  judgment  that  if  a  man  did  not  have  the  gift  of  continency  he 
had  better  marry.     But  he  had  the  conviction  that  because  of  the  dis- 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  155 

tress  of  the  times,  and  because  of  the  nearness  of  the  Parousia,  it  was 
better  for  both  men  and  women  to  remain  unmarried.  He  had  the 
conviction  that  a  woman  would  be  happier  if  she  remained  unmarried, 
and  she  could  then  give  herself  wholly  to  the  service  of  the  Lord,  and  he 
believed  the  Spirit  of  God  led  him  to  that  conviction. 

Paul  gave  it  as  his  conviction  that  it  was  better  for  one  who  had 
become  a  Christian  to  remain  with  the  pagan  companion,  providing 
the  pagan  companion  was  willing  to  continue  in  marital  relationship. 
He  did  not  give  that  advice  as  a  command,  but  he  stated  it  as  his  judg- 
ment, and  in  such  an  emphatic  manner  that  it  is  evident  that  he  felt 
he  was  expressing  the  will  of  God  on  the  subject.  Paul  felt  it  was 
better  for  a  Christian  to  remain  in  the  state  in  which  he  was  when  he 
was  called  into  Christ's  service,  and  there  could  be  rvo  objection  to  a 
Christian  remaining  with  a  heathen  companion,  for  the  Christian  mem- 
ber would  sanctify  the  union. 

Paul's  advice  to  the  slave  not  to  seek  liberty  was  undoubtedly 
the  expression  of  a  general  conviction  which  he  had  on  the  subject. 
It  would  not  be  wrong  for  one  to  be  a  slave,  and  it  would  not  be  wrong 
for  one  to  be  a  free  man,  but  because  of  the  shortness  of  the  time,  Paul 
had  the  feeUng  that  it  would  be  better  for  a  man  to  remain  as  he  was 
when  he  became  a  Christian.  He  undoubtedly  felt  that  he  was  express- 
ing the  will  of  God  when  he  advised  the  Christian  who  is  free  not  to 
seek  bondage,  and  the  Christian  who  is  in  bondage  not  to  seek  freedom. 

The  Experience  Resulting  from  the  Practise  of  Religion 
a.  As  illustrated  by  his  own  experience. 

A  careful  study  of  Paul's  writings  demonstrates  the  fact  that  he 
regarded  the  experience  resulting  from  the  practical  working  out  of 
religion  as  a  means  by  which  the  divine  revelation  was  made  known.  He 
believed  God  was  leading  men  in  the  ordinary  experiences  of  life.  He 
was  conscious  that  God  was  leading  him  in  ways  which  he  could  not  at 
the  time  understand.  He  was  frequently  led  to  do  things  by  circum- 
stances which  at  the  time  bafHed  him,  but  which  he  afterward  inter- 
preted as  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit.  He  wanted  to  tarry  for  a 
time  in  Corinth,  if  the  Lord  would  permit  him  to  do  so,  and  he  prayed 
that  he  might  be  prospered  by  the  will  of  God  to  come  to  Rome.  He 
interpreted  the  circumstances  which  made  it  possible  or  impossible 
for  him  to  do  certain  things  as  the  leading  of  God. 

While  Paul's  own  personal  experience  influenced  him  in  the  develop- 
ment of  his  conception  of  the  relation  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit, 


156  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

he  undoubtedly  believed  his  conviction  was  a  revelation  from  God. 
He  had  understood  what  it  meant  to  struggle  against  the  desires  of 
the  flesh.  He  realized  that  even  for  the  Christian  the  flesh  is  antago- 
nistic to  the  spirit  and  is  constantly  warring  against  it.  He  realized 
from  his  own  experience  that  unless  the  Christian  conquered  the  flesh 
it  would  conquer  him  and  prevent  him  from  doing  what  he  would  (Gal. 
5:16,  17).  He  knew  that  the  struggle  of  the  flesh  against  the  spirit 
was  so  keen  that  he  had  to  buffet  his  body  and  bring  it  into  subjection, 
lest  after  he  had  preached  to  others,  he  should  be  a  castaway  (I  Cor.  9 :27). 
Paul  must  have  been  convinced  from  his  own  experience  that  sin  dwelt 
in  his  members,  but  his  own  experience  must  also  have  convinced  him 
that  sin  could  be  dethroned  and  the  members  of  his  body  could  be  made 
instruments  of  righteousness.  It  was  undoubtedly  his  own  experience 
which  convinced  him  that  sin  may  be  banished  and  Jesus  may  be  mani- 
fested in  our  own  mortal  flesh  (II  Cor.  4:11).  Paul  believed  the  body 
belongs  to  God,  and  his  own  experience  convinced  him  that  it  can  be 
made  a  fit  dwelling  place  for  the  divine  Spirit.  He  knew  from  his  obser- 
vation of  others  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  was  working  out  the  same 
things  in  them,  for  he  could  see,  as  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  "love,  joy, 
peace,  longsuffering,  gentleness,  etc."  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that 
Paul  believed  his  convictions  concerning  the  relation  of  the  flesh  to  sin 
were  the  result  of  experience.  He  believed  that  God  had  made  these 
truths  known  to  him,  and  hence  they  had  the  authority  of  a  revelation. 
Although  Paul  did  not  realize  that  it  was  his  own  experience  which 
had  guided  him  in  the  development  of  his  idea  of  justification,  yet  that 
was  undoubtedly  the  most  important  influence.  He  knew  that  justi- 
fication on  the  basis  of  law  was  a  failure,  for  he  had  given  it  a  thorough 
test  and  he  had  miserably  failed.  He  dehghted  in  the  law  of  God 
after  the  inward  man,  but  he  found  that  there  was  a  different  law  in 
his  members  warring  against  the  law  of  his  mind.  His  inner  self  con- 
sented to  the  law  that  it  was  good  and  agreed  that  he  ought  to  keep  it, 
but  his  own  experience  had  convinced  him  that  there  was  nothing  in 
the  law  to  give  him  strength  and  inspiration  to  do  the  things  which  he 
knew  he  ought  to  do.  He  was  a  wretched  man,  for  he  knew  what  he 
ought  to  do,  but  he  was  brought  into  captivity  under  the  law  of  sin 
which  was  in  his  members  so  that  he  did  not  do  it.  Paul's  attitude 
towards  the  law  was  the  result  of  experience.  He  did  not  impose  it 
upon  the  Gentiles,  and  he  strenuously  resisted  any  attempt  of  the 
Judaizers  to  unnecessarily  hamper  them,  because  he  felt  the  law  had 
been  a  burden  to  him  rather  than  a  help.    His  Christian  experience 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  157 

had  completely  changed  his  estimate  of  the  law  as  a  means  of  justifi- 
cation. The  law  had  failed  to  help  him  directly,  but  it  had  convinced 
him  of  his  need  and  thus  served  as  a  pedagogue  to  bring  him  to  Christ. 
Inasmuch  as  it  had  failed  to  help  him,  he  believed  it  was  unnecessary 
for  the  Gentiles.  Paul  knew  from  his  own  experience  that  one  is  jus- 
tified through  faith  in  Christ,  for  he  had  tried  it  and  had  succeeded 
gloriously.  He  knew  that  one  who  is  justified  by  faith  has  peace  with 
God,  for  he  had  experienced  that  peace  in  his  own  soul.  He  knew  that 
one  who  is  justified  by  faith  has  before  him  such  a  strong  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God  that  he  rejoices  even  in  his  tribulations,  and  he  knew  this 
because  he  had  passed  through  these  tribulations  and  had  rejoiced 
in  them.  Paul  knew  that  one  who  is  justified  by  faith  is  dead  to  sin, 
for  he  had  passed  through  that  death  himself.  He  knew  that  one  who 
is  justified  by  faith  is  freed  from  the  law,  for  he  had  experienced  this 
liberty;  and  yet  his  own  experience  had  taught  him  that  the  Christian 
is  under  a  more  exacting  law,  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  Jesus. 
Paul  knew  that  the  one  who  is  justified  by  faith  has  triumphed  over 
death,  for  he  had  once  feared  death;  but  since  he  had  come  to  know  Christ 
it  had  lost  its  terrors,  and  instead  of  shrinking  from  it,  he  now  longed 
to  depart  and  be  with  Christ.  He  knew  from  experience  that  death 
cannot  touch  the  spirit  of  the  one  in  whom  Christ  abides.  While  we 
interpret  the  development  of  Paul's  thought  on  the  basis  of  experience, 
it  is  not  at  all  probable  that  he  would  have  explained  it  in  that  way.  He 
believed  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  had  the  authority  of 
revelation,  as  God  had  made  this  known  to  him  through  his  Spirit. 
Paul's  notion  of  the  new  life  was  largely  the  result  of  experience. 
He  spoke  with  conviction  about  the  Christian's  relation  to  Christ,  be- 
cause he  was  speaking  out  of  his  own  personal  experience  He  must 
have  realized,  when  he  looked  back  over  his  life,  that  he  had  passed 
through  a  wonderful  transformation,  and  that  this  was  the  result  of  his 
relation  to  Christ.  He  knew  that  the  one  who  is  in  Christ  is  a  new 
creature,  for  this  fact  had  been  demonstrated  in  his  own  life.  He 
knew  it  was  possible  for  one's  life  to  be  dominated  and  controlled  by  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  for  he  had  put  it  to  the  test.  Christ  was  such  a  dominant 
factor  in  his  life  that  he  could  say  Christ  was  living  within  him.  Paul 
beUeved  it  is  through  faith  that  Christ  enters  into  one's  life  and  takes 
possession  of  him,  and  he  believed  this  because  it  was  through  faith 
that  he  had  come  into  such  close  touch  with  the  Master  that  he  was 
living  within  him.  Paul  beUeved  it  was  possible  for  others  to  know 
Christ  as  he  had  come  to  know  him,  hence  his  experience  was  made  a 


158  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

norm  for  all.  He  knew  that  Christ  had  been  formed  in  him,  and  he  was 
anxious  that  he  should  be  formed  in  others.  Paul  knew  that  he  had  the 
leading  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  he  was  anxious  that  others  should 
follow  the  same  leading.  The  ground  of  certainty  for  Paul  was  his 
knowledge  of  the  Uving  Christ,  and  he  beheved  every  man  should  have 
this  assurance.  He  told  the  Corinthians  to  examine  themselves  whether 
they  were  in  the  faith  (II  Cor  13:5).  Paul  knew  that  the  Spirit  gave 
him  confidence  and  assurance  and  enabled  him  to  cry,  "Abba,  Father," 
and  he  wanted  others  to  have  this  same  confidence.  He  knew  that  the 
Spirit  helped  him  in  his  infirmity,  and  made  intercession  for  him,  and 
he  was  anxious  that  others  should  avail  themselves  of  this  same  help. 

Paul  did  not  definitely  distinguish  between  the  indwelling  Christ 
and  the  indwelling  Spirit,  and  the  reason  was  that  from  the  point  of 
view  of  experience  they  were  practically  the  same.^  Paul  was  more 
concerned  about  what  the  Holy  Spirit  does  than  he  was  about  what 
the  Holy  Spirit  is.  For  Paul  the  Spirit  was  the  divine  energy  that  was 
manifested  within  him.  He  thought  according  to  the  Spirit,  and  he 
walked  according  to  the  Spirit,  and  he  believed  he  and  all  the  others 
who  yielded  themselves  to  the  divine  energy  were  spiritual  men. 

Paul  believed  all  Christians  were  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  He 
did  not  think  he  was  the  only  one  who  had  the  Spirit  of  God.  He  was 
merely  the  helper  of  the  faith  of  others,  and  he  wanted  them  to  follow 
the  leading  of  the  Spirit  within.  He  did  consider  his  inner  experiences 
as  being  authoritative,  and  some  of  these  experiences  were  regarded 
as  being  of  peculiar  value.  His  experience  was  the  medium  through 
which  God  was  reveaUng  his  great  truths,  and  these  truths  were  pro- 
claimed as  the  gospel  of  God,  and  anathemas  were  hurled  against  any 
who  should  proclaim  another  gospel. 

In  addition  to  these  inner  experiences  there  were  those  that  were 
connected  with  his  missionary  activities,  and  he  regarded  these  also 
as  indications  that  the  Spirit  was  sanctioning  what  he  was  doing.  Paul 
believed  truth  was  verified  by  its  results.  The  success  of  a  movement 
demonstrates  that  it  has  divine  approval.  While  Paul  based  his  claim 
to  apostleship  on  his  inner  experience,  he  appealed  to  the  success  of  his 
work  as  a  proof  of  his  claim.  It  was  on  this  ground  that  he  endeavored 
to  get  the  leaders  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  to  sanction  his  work,  and 
it  was  the  fact  that  God  was  working  mightily  in  Paul  toward  the  Gen- 
tiles that  induced  these  leaders  to  give  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship 

"Auguste  Sabatier  {Les  Religions  D'  Autorite  Et  La  Religion  De  V  Esprit,  pp. 
473  f.;  Eng.  trans.,  1904,  p.  307)  says:  "To  believe  in  Christ,  to  be  in  Christ,  the  life 
of  Christ  in  us,  and  to  receive  the  Spirit  are  synonymous  terms. " 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  159 

(Gal  2:8,  9).  In  his  letter  to  the  Corinthians  Paul  urged  that  they 
should  regard  him  as  an  apostle,  because  he  had  done  among  them  the 
work  of  an  apostle.  He  told  them  they  were  the  seal  of  his  apostleship. 
He  assured  the  Corinthians  that  the  works  of  an  apostle  had  been  done 
by  him  in  their  midst  through  signs  and  wonders  and  mighty  works. 
He  assured  them  that,  when  judged  by  his  labors,  he  was  not  behind  the 
chiefest  of  the  apostles, 
b.  As  illustrated  by  the  experience  of  others. 

In  seeking  to  establish  the  Galatians  in  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith,  Paul  appealed  to  their  own  experience  as  convincing  proof 
that  they  had  the  Spirit  and  could  trust  its  authority.  He  asked  them 
whether  they  received  the  Spirit  by  works  of  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of 
faith.  His  question  would  imply  that  it  was  by  the  hearing  of  faith 
that  they  had  received  the  Spirit,  and  that  being  true,  their  experience 
ought  to  convince  them  that  justification  is  on  the  basis  of  faith.  He 
appealed  to  their  experience  again  when  he  asked  whether  the  one  who 
ministered  to  them  the  Spirit  and  worked  miracles  among  them  did  it 
by  the  works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith.  These  Galatians 
knew  from  experience  that  it  was  by  faith  that  they  had  received  the 
Spirit  and  were  able  to  perform  miracles,  and  Paul  insisted  that  this 
experience  should  convince  them  that  they  had  the  Spirit  and  that  it 
could  be  trusted  as  an  authoritative  guide 

In  his  controversy  with  Peter  at  Antioch,  Paul  appealed  to  their 
common  experience.  When  Peter  separated  himself  from  the  Gentile 
element  in  the  church  on  account  of  those  who  had  come  from  James, 
he  was  virtually  saying  that  the  Gentiles  were  not  as  good  as  the  Jews, 
because  they  had  not  kept  the  Jewish  rites.  Peter,  by  his  actions,  was 
virtually  saying  to  the  Gentile  Christians,  we  who  are  Jewish  Chris- 
tians are  better  than  you,  and  we  cannot  fellowship  you  unless  you 
keep  the  Jewish  law.  In  rebuking  Peter,  Paul  appealed  to  their  common 
experience.  He  said,  We,  who  are  Jews  by  nature,  know  "  that  a  man  is 
not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  only  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ."  Paul  evidently  meant  to  imply  that  they  had  found  that  out 
in  their  own  experience,  and  his  conclusion  was  that  inasmuch  as  the 
law  had  not  helped  them  they  should  not  try  to  bind  it  on  the  Gentiles. 
Paul  regarded  their  experience  as  a  proof  of  the  Spirit's  presence,  and 
inasmuch  as  the  Spirit  is  authoritative,  he  beUeved  their  experience 
could  be  trusted  as  indicating  the  Spirit's  will  for  the  whole  Gentile 
world.  He  estimated  the  law  as  a  means  of  justification  by  its  work- 
ings. It  had  failed  to  help  hun  and  Peter,  and  he  insisted  that  it  should 
not  be  fastened  upon  the  Gentiles. 


160  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Experience  Resulting  from  Reason 

One  of  the  most  vital  phases  of  the  experience  of  a  great  soul  like 
Paul  is  the  conclusions  to  which  he  has  come  through  a  process  of  rea- 
soning. The  elements  which  enter  into  this  reasoning  process  are  varied, 
and  they  help  to  determine  the  results  which  are  reached;  but  the  whole 
process  becomes  a  vital  part  of  experience.  The  breadth  and  keenness 
of  Paul's  mind  made  this  part  of  his  experience  significant  for  Christian- 
ity. Paul  felt  that  the  Spirit  of  God  guided  him  in  reaching  his  conclu- 
sions, and  as  the  Spirit  of  God  is  authoritative,  these  conclusions  could 
be  accepted  as  correct. 

There  was  nothing  in  Paul's  religious  thinking  that  was  more  fun- 
damental than  the  death  of  Christ,  and  his  thought  about  the  signi- 
ficance of  Christ's  death  was  to  a  large  extent  the  result  of  a  process 
of  reasoning.  His  conclusions  were  so  vital  to  him  that  they  were 
accepted  as  the  revelation  of  the  Spirit,  and  they  were  presented  to 
the  church  on  the  basis  of  that  authority.  His  reasoning  was  based 
on  truths  which  he  had  experienced,  and  his  conclusions  then  created 
new  experiences.  Christ's  death  was  for  man's  salvation.  His  death 
on  the  cross  was  a  curse,  but  he  was  made  a  curse  for  others.  On  the 
divine  side,  Christ's  death  enabled  God  to  show  himself  to  have  been 
just  in  passing  over  sin,  and  at  the  same  to  be  the  justifier  of  those  who 
have  faith  in  Christ.  On  the  human  side,  Christ  in  his  death  fulfilled 
the  law  and  remo\ed  it,  and  thus  enabled  a  man  to  become  united  to 
him.  Paul's  mysticism  made  it  natural  for  him  to  feel  that  man  died 
with  Christ  on  the  cross  and  was  raised  with  him.  Paul  undoubtedly 
reached  these  conclusions  through  a  process  of  reasoning  which  he 
interpreted  as  the  leading  of  the  divine  Spirit.  He  knew  he  had  the  mind 
of  Christ  and  he  believed  his  statement  could  be  accepted  as  trustworthy. 
His  conclusions  which  were  the  result  of  a  process  of  reasoning  became 
vital  in  his  experience,  and  they  were  presented  to  the  church  with 
as  much  certainty  as  any  other  part  of  his  teachings. 

Paul's  conception  of  the  purpose  of  the  law  could  only  result  from 
a  process  of  reasoning,  and  yet  his  conclusions  were  so  true  to  experience 
that  they  were  as  authoritative  for  him  as  if  they  had  come  through 
revelation,  and  he  undoubtedly  felt  that  he  had  been  guided  by  the 
Spirit  in  reaching  these  conclusions.  The  law  was  the  greatest  heritage 
which  Judaism  possessed,  and  yet  it  could  not  justify.  It  was  divinely 
given,  and  it  must  have  had  some  purpose  in  the  great  divine  plan. 


I 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  161 

On  the  basis  of  his  own  experience,  Paul  concluded  the  purpose  of 
the  law  was  to  show  man  his  own  helplessness  and  his  need  of  divine 
mercy.  He  argued  that  the  law,  by  showing  to  man  his  inability  to 
keep  it,  had  shut  him  up  under  sin  and  had  thus  become  a  tutor  to 
bring  him  to  Christ.  This  conviction  which  Paul  reached  through  a 
process  of  reasoning  was  a  complete  reversal  of  his  former  conception  of 
the  purpose  of  the  law,  and  it  was  presented  in  Galatians  and  Romans 
as   an   authoritative   interpretation   for   others. 

One  of  the  most  striking  illustrations  of  the  certainty  of  the  con- 
clusions which  he  reached  through  reason  is  in  connection  with  the 
rejection  of  Israel.  There  is  no  teaching  in  Paul's  writings  that  is 
given  more  emphatically  than  the  rejection  of  Israel,  and  the  purpose 
which  God  was  seeking  to  accompUsh  through  this  rejection;  and  these 
conclusions  must  have  been  the  result  of  reason,  based  on  certain  facts 
which  were  a  part  of  his  experience.  Paul's  conversion  convinced 
him  that  God  guides  the  destiny  of  man;  that  he  separates  him  from 
his  mother's  womb,  and  calls  him  into  his  service.  Paul  was  convinced 
that  he  was  a  Christian,  not  because  of  any  initiative  on  his  part,  but 
because  God  had  laid  hold  upon  him.  He  did  not  think  of  his  own  con- 
version as  being  peculiar.  He  was  saved  because  of  the  grace  of  God, 
and  others  were  saved  for  the  same  reason.  Just  a  few  of  the  great 
mass  of  the  people  who  heard  the  gospel  had  accepted  it,  and  the  expla- 
nation of  this  was,  not  that  the  gospel  had  not  been  faithfully  preached 
but  that  God  had  been  calHng  whom  he  would.  Most  of  the  Chris- 
tian converts  in  Corinth,  and  in  other  cities  as  well,  were  from  the 
poor  and  uncultured  classes;  but  this  was  for  Paul,  not  an  indication  of 
the  weakness  of  the  gospel,  but  of  the  choice  God  was  making.  He 
was  choosing  the  weak  things  of  the  world  that  he  might  put  to  shame 
the  things  that  are  strong.  The  eagerness  of  the  Thessalonians  to 
accept  the  gospel  was  a  proof  of  their  election.  The  gospel  came  to  them 
in  power  because  God  had  elected  them  to  salvation. 

One  of  the  most  discouraging  obstacles  which  Paul  had  to  over- 
come in  his  missionry  activities  was  the  rejection  of  the  gospel  by 
the  Jews.  He  was  confronted  by  the  fact  that  in  every  community  the 
Gentiles  accepted  his  message  while  the  Jews  rejected  it.  It  was  a 
great  disappointment  to  Paul  that  his  own  countrymen  did  not  accept 
the  gospel,  but  he  knew  the  fault  was  not  his,  for  he  would  have  been 
willing  to  have  been  cursed  for  their  sakes.  They  were  not  accepting 
the  gospel,  because  God  was  rejecting  them;  and  it  was  because  God  was 
choosing  the  Gentiles  that  they  were  accepting  the  gospel. 


162  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Paul  argued  that  God  was  working  out  a  great  plan  in  what  he  was 
doing,  and  his  plan  was  the  winning  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  so  that 
all  should  be  saved.  The  reasoning  which  led  him  to  this  conclusion 
was  based  upon  his  own  observations.  Although  the  Jews  were  reject- 
ing the  gospel,  the  Gentiles  in  large  numbers  were  accepting  it,  and  he 
had  seen  the  zeal  of  these  Gentiles  win  Jewish  converts,  and  he  had 
also  seen  the  barriers  which  separated  Jews  and  Gentiles  removed.  He 
concluded  that  what  had  happened  on  a  small  scale  under  his  observa- 
tion, God  was  directing,  and  he  believed  that  what  God  had  accom- 
plished in  a  small  way,  he  would  ultimately  make  universal.  Paul 
undoubtedly  felt  that  the  Spirit  of  Gk)d  had  guided  him  in  reaching 
his  conclusions,  and  he  presented  these  to  the  church  with  absolute 
certainty. 

Paul's  conviction  concerning  the  institutions  of  his  day  was  the 
result  of  reason,  based  upon  conditions  as  he  saw  them.  His  advice 
to  the  Christian  concerning  his  relation  to  slavery  was  the  result  of 
careful  thinking  on  the  subject  in  the  Hght  of  the  Christian  life  as  he 
had  understood  it  and  experienced  it.  He  believed  his  conclusions 
were  final,  and  he  felt  he  had  a  right  to  command  even  though  he  simply 
advised.  His  conviction  was  that  a  Christian  master  should  treat  his 
servant  as  a  brother,  for  he  is  that  in  reality,  and  the  law  of  love  would 
make  it  impossible  for  him  to  do  otherwise.  The  Christian  servant 
should  not  seek  to  be  free,  for  the  time  is  short,  and  he  is  Christ's  free 
man  even  though  he  be  a  bond-servant. 

Paul  admonished  Christians  to  be  obedient  to  the  state  and  to  help 
to  support  it  by  paying  tribute  and  custom.  His  conclusion  was  the  re- 
sult of  his  thinking  over  the  situation  with  the  conditions  in  the  Roman 
world,  as  he  had  seen  them,  in  mind.  When  he  saw  how  Roman  domi- 
nation had  brought  peace  throughout  the  Mediterranean  world,  and  how 
this  had  made  it  possible  for  the  missionaries  to  carry  on  their  work,  he 
concluded  that  the  civil  power  is  ordained  of  God  When  he  saw  how 
Roman  officials  punished  offenders  and  restrained  evil-doers,  he  con- 
cluded that  civil  rulers  are  ministers  of  God  for  good.  Paul  did  not 
merely  express  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  state  is  of  God,  and  that  rulers 
are  God's  ministers,  and  hence  Christians  ought  to  obey  them;  he  stated 
it  as  a  fact  and  commanded  obedience.  He  was  absolutely  certain  about 
his  conclusions,  and  he  undoubtedly  felt  that  he  had  the  leading  of  the 
divine  spirit  in  arriving  at  at  these  convictions. 

The  Relation  of  Experience  to  his  Jewish  Inheritance 
Paul  had  been  a  devout  Jew  before  he  became  a  Christian.     He  was 
a  Pharisee  of  the  Pharisees.     He  had  been  trained  in  the  rabbinical 


CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  163 

schools,  and  he  was  famiUar  with  the  Jewish  thought  of  his  day.  He 
was  well  acquainted  with  the  extra-canonical  writings  of  the  Jews, 
and  with  their  oral  traditions.  His  thinking  before  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian moved  along  the  hnes  of  current  Judaism,  and  much  that  was  pecu- 
liar to  current  Judaism  remained  as  a  part  of  his  Christian  thinking. 
Much  of  Paul's  thought  was  in  no  particular  sense  his  own,  for  his 
previous  training  exerted  a  tremendous  influence  on  his  thinking  as  a 
Christian.  He  said  the  revelation  of  Christ  in  him  had  made  him  a 
new  creature,  but  this  was  only  partially  true,  for  much  of  Judaism  was 
carried  over  into  his  Christian  experience.  There  was  a  sense  in  which 
Paul  remained  a  Jew  even  after  he  became  a  Christian.  He  regarded 
himself  as  a  '^Hebrew"  (H  Cor.  11:22;  Phil.  3:5),  and  an  'Israelite"  / 
(HCor.  ll:22;Rom.  11:1),  and  of  the  "seed  of  Abraham."  He  thought 
of  himself  as  belonging  to  "the  Israel  of  God"  (Gal.  6:16),  and  he 
referred  to  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness  as  "our  fathers"  (I  Cor.  10:1). 
He  boasted  of  the  fact  that  he  was  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  belonged 
to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (Rom.  11:1),  and  that  he  was  circumcised  on 
the  eighth  day  (Phil.  3:5). 

In  discussing  the  relation  of  experience  to  Paul's  Jewish  inheritance, 
it  will  be  most  convenient  to  arrange  it  under  two  heads — the  relation 
of  his  experience  to  current  Judaism,  and  the  relation  of  his  experience 
to  the  Old  Testament. 

Current  Judaism 

The  term  "current  Judaism"  is  meant  to  include  the  thought  of 
the  Jewish  world  of  which  Paul  was  a  part.  After  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian he  had  to  readjust  all  the  religious  thinking  of  his  past  life,  and 
if  we  have  made  a  correct  interpretation  of  Paul,  the  standard  according 
to  which  he  judged  everything  was  his  new  experience,  and  this  he  inter- 
preted as  a  revelation  from  God.  He  believed  he  was  guided  by  the 
Spirit  in  making  this  readjustment. 
a.  Elements  inherited  from  Judaism  which  were  but  slightly  changed. 

In  making  a  study  of  Paul's  Christian  thought,  one  must  be  impresed 
with  the  fact  that  much  of  it  was  brought  over  from  current  Judaism,  and 
that  these  Jewish  ideas  continued,  with  but  few  modifications,  a  part 
of  his  Christian  thinking.  There  are  many  things  in  the  writings  of 
Paul  which  indicate  that  he  still  venerated  the  religion  of  his  fathers. 
In  proving  his  right  as  an  apostle  to  claim  support,  he  cited  a  couple 
of  well-known  incidents  from  the  religion  of  Judaism.     He  referred 


164  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

to  the  one  who  ministers  in  the  temple  eating  of  the  things  of  the  tem- 
ple, and  also  to  those  who  wait  upon  the  altar  having  their  portion 
with  the  altar;  and  the  use  which  he  made  of  these  illustrations  indi- 
cates that  because  they  were  taken  from  the  Jewish  religion  he  attached 
special  importance  to  them. 

Paul's  conception  of  the  universe  as  being  like  the  different  stories 
of  a  building  was  Jewish.  His  idea  of  Satan  and  of  evil  spirits  was  in 
harmony  with  the  Jewish  thought  of  his  time.  When  he  mentioned 
any  of  these  subjects  he  simply  expressed  the  thought  which  he  had 
inherited  from  the  past.  Paul  had  lived  in  a  world  that  was  supposed 
to  be  inhabited  by  evil  spirits,  and  he  had  naturally  accepted  that 
belief,  and  this  conviction  gave  these  evil  spirits  a  place  in  his  experience. 

Paul's  conception  of  God's  relation  to  the  universe  was  to  a  large 
extent  that  of  current  Judaism.  Paul  had  been  a  firm  believer  in  God 
before  he  became  a  Christian,  and  any  modifications  in  his  thought  of 
God  which  came  as  a  result  of  his  Christian  experience  seem  to  have  been 
unconscious  to  himself,  as  there  is  no  indication  in  any  of  his  writings 
that  he  was  criticising  the  Jewish  conception  of  God,  or  that  he  was 
caUing  in  question  incorrect  ideas  which  he  had  before  his  conversion. 
It  was  beheved  in  later  Judaism  that  God  acted  upon  the  world  through 
intermediaries,  and  angels  were  included  among  these.  Paul  retained 
angels  in  his  Christian  thinking,  but  they  did  not  occupy  a  very  vital 
place.  According  to  the  Old  Testament  account,^  Jehovah  gave  the 
law  to  the  people,  but  Paul  said:  "The  law  was  ordained  through  angels 
by  the  hand  of  a  mediator"  (Gal.  3:19).  The  tradition  that  the  law 
was  given  through  angels  fitted  in  well  with  the  conception  that  was 
current  in  later  Judaism  that  God  acted  upon  the  world  through  inter- 
mediaries. That  tradition  found  expression  in  the  Book  of  Jubilees, 
and  it  was  a  part  of  Paul's  pre-Christian  thinking  and  it  continued  to 
represent  his  thought  after  his  conversion. 

Paul,  when  he  was  a  Pharisee,  must  have  regarded  some  of  the  extra- 
canonical  Jewish  writings  as  belonging  with  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
and  he  must  have  retained  that  attitude  after  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian. The  quotation,  "Eye  hath  not  seen,  etc."  is  introduced  with  the 
formula,  "As  it  is  written,"  and  this  quotation  is  not  found  in  any  of 
the  Old  Testament  books;  but  according  to  several  of  the  Church  Fathers 
it  did  occur  in  an  "Apocalypse  of  Elijah." 
b.  Elements  inherited  from  Judaism  that  were  vitally  changed. 

A  careful  study  of  Paul's  writings  reveals  the  fact  that  while  many 
elements  that  were  inherited  from  Judaism  remained  unaltered  in  his 

'  See  Ex.  chap.  20;  Deut.  chap.  5. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  165 

Christian  thinking,  there  were  others  that  were  modified,  or  completely 
changed.  The  standard  by  which  he  determined  his  beliefs  was  his 
Christian  experience,  and  this  he  interpreted  as  the  mind  of  Christ. 
He  modified  his  inherited  beliefs  when  they  did  not  agree  with  what 
he  was  convinced  the  Spirit  had  revealed  to  him.  When  there  was  no 
conflict  between  his  inherited  beliefs  and  his  Christian  experience,  or 
the  revelation  of  the  Spirit,  there  was  no  vital  change  in  his  thought; 
but  when  his  Jewish  beHefs  were  contradicted  by  experience,  they  were 
changed,  and  a  Christian  content  was  put  into  them. 

As  indicated  above,  Paul  was  perhaps  unconscious  of  the  fact  that 
his  conception  of  God  had  undergone  a  change  under  the  influence  of 
his  Christian  experiences,  but  it  had  been  very  much  modified.  His  own 
conversion  and  his  missionary  labors  strengthened  his  belief  in  the 
divine  sovereignty.  In  the  light  of  his  Christian  experience  Paul 
was  led  to  believe  that  God  was  not  a  mere  legalist,  dealing  with  men 
on  the  basis  of  law,  but  that  he  so  loved  men  that  he  delivered  up  his 
Son  on  their  behalf  and  was  constraining  them  by  the  power  of  his 
love.  Through  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit  which  he  had  received, 
he  was  led  to  feel  that  God  is  near  and  that  he  is  Father.  Because  of 
his  contact  with  the  Gentile  world,  he  became  convinced  that  God  is 
interested  in  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews,  and  that  he  had  been 
seeking  to  make  himself  known  to  them. 

Because  of  his  Christian  experience,  Paul's  conception  of  the  Messiah, 
which  he  inherited  from  Judaism,  was  entirely  changed.  Instead  of 
thinking  of  him  as  a  national  deliverer,  he  had  come  to  regard  him  as 
the  world's  savior.  Instead  of  believing  that  he  could  not  suffer,  the 
death  on  the  cross  had  become  fundamental  in  his  thinking.  Paul's 
conversion-experience,  which  was  regarded  as  a  revelation  of  Christ, 
became  the  standard  according  to  which  old  ideas  were  readjusted;  and 
in  the  light  of  that  wonderful  experience,  the  very  ideas  which  had 
formerly  made  him  feel  that  Jesus  was  an  impostor,  and  not  the  Messiah, 
were  now  felt  to  be  fundamental  in  his  Messianic  work.  In  the  light 
of  this  experience  he  could  say,  he  had  once  known  the  Messiah  after 
the  flesh,  but  he  had  now  come  to  know  an  entirely  different  Messiah. 

Paul's  eschatology  was  Jewish,  but  he  transferred  to  the  second 
coming  of  Christ  the  things  which  the  Jews  expected  their  Messiah  to 
do.  Paul's  experience  led  him  to  place  more  emphasis  on  the  practical 
phases  of  eschatology,  hence  many  of  the  details  which  are  so  con- 
spicuous in  Jewish  apocalypses  are  not  found  in  his  writings."* 

*H.  A.  A.  Kennedy  (St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Last  Things,  1904,  p.  174)  says: 
"The  circle  of  events  which  St.  Paul  groups  around  the  Parousia  are  no  mechanical 


166  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Paul's  Christian  experience  led  him  to  completely  reverse  his  esti- 
mate of  the  law.  It  had  once  been  the  chief  object  of  his  glory,  and  was 
regarded  as  the  means  by  which  a  man  is  justified  and  made  holy, 
but  in  the  light  of  his  Christian  experience,  it  was  regarded  as  a  curse 
from  which  Christ  by  his  death  delivered  men.  Instead  of  the  law 
being  regarded  as  a  help  to  man,  Paul  had  come  to  think  of  it  as  shutting 
man  up  under  sin,  and  thus  showing  him  his  helplessness  and  his  need 
of  divine  mercy. 

Paul's  Christian  experience  absolutely  reversed  his  notion  of  God's 
attitude  toward  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile.  He  had  formerly  regarded 
the  Gentiles  as  accursed  of  God,  because  they  did  not  know  the  law  and 
consequently  could  not  keep  it;  but  experience  had  convinced  him  that 
the  Gentiles,  who  did  not  have  the  revealed  law,  were  doing  by  nature 
the  things  of  the  law.  He  had  formerly  believed  that  the  Jews  were 
God's  chosen  people,  and  that  the  only  hope  for  the  Gentiles  was  in 
beconpiing  Jewish  proselytes;  but  his  experience  had  convinced  him  that 
God  was  rejecting  the  Jews  and  was  choosing  the  Gentiles  for  the  working 
out  of  his  plan,  and  the  reason  he  was  doing  this  was  that  the  Gentiles 
were  more  acceptable  to  God  than  were  the  Jews. 

Paul's  experience  before  and  after  his  conversion  had  given  him  a 
different  impression  of  the  Roman  Empire  from  what  was  ordinarily 
held  by  the  Jews.  Instead  of  regarding  it  as  an  instrument  used  by 
God  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  his  disobedient  children,  or  as  an 
agency,  which  is  evil  in  itself,  but  which  God  uses  to  carry  out  his  plan, 
experience  had  convinced  Paul  that  the  Roman  Empire  was  ordained 
of  God,  and  that  the  Roman  ofl&cials  were  God's  ministers,  and  even 
their  punishments  were  divinely  ordained  to  restrain  evil-doers. 

The  Old  Testament 

Paul's  Jewish  training  had  familiarized  him  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures,  and  his  thinking  was  determined  by  Old  Testament 
doctrines  and  ideals,  and  it  would  be  natural  for  these  to  hold  a  promi- 
nent place  in  his  Christian  thinking.  It  seems  evident  from  a  study 
of  his  writings,  that  his  Christian  experience  was  the  standard  by  which 
he  estimated  even  the  Old  Testament,  and  he  believed  he  was  being 
guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  what  he  was  doing.  When  experience 
had  convinced  him  that  a  certain  thing  was  true,  he  went  back  to  the 

reproductions  of  current  Judaistic  ideas,  but  take  all  their  color  from  his  own  experience 
of  the  risen  Lord. " 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  167 

Old  Testament  to  find  statements  to  prove  it.  He  sometimes  used  the 
Scriptures  in  a  manner  which,  from  our  point  of  view,  cannot  be  justi- 
fied, but  which  was  perfectly  natural  to  him.  His  rabbinical  method 
of  interpretation  enabled  him  to  read  back  into  the  Scriptures  what 
he  wanted  to  find.  A  brief  summary  of  Paul's  use  of  the  Old  Testament, 
as  it  is  brought  out  in  the  preceding  chapters  of  this  treatise,  will  demon- 
strate the  fact  that  although  he  quoted  the  Scriptures  as  authorita- 
tive, there  was  for  him  an  authority  which  was  more  binding  than  the 
Scriptures, 
a.  Paul's  use  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Paul  designated  the  Old  Testament  as  "the  oracles  of  God"  (Rom. 
3:2),  and  he  beheved  it  was  a  divine  revelation  of  God's  plan  and  pur- 
pose (I  Cor.  15:4;  Gal.  3:8).  He  received  his  fundamental  ideas  of 
religion  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  he  used  it  as  Scripture  on  all 
occasions. 

Paul  used  Old  Testament  language  to  emphasize  his  point,  without 
citing  it  as  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  regardless  of  the  connection 
in  which  this  language  is  found.  Sometimes  the  sense  in  which  he  used 
this  language,  taken  from  the  Old  Testament,  corresponds  with  the  origi- 
nal meaning,  and  sometimes  he  gave  it  a  significance  which  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  what  was  intended  by  the  original  writer. 

Paul  frequently  used  the  Old  Testament  as  illustration  material. 
The  sense  in  which  he  used  it  was  sometimes  true  to  the  original  con- 
text, and  he  sometimes  did  violence  to  the  historical  meaning  of  the 
passage.  Historical  incidents  were  used  as  though  they  were  intended- 
to  be  types,  and  had  been  written,  not  for  historical  purposes,  but  for 
admonition  to  future  ages.  Historical  passages  were  treated  as  alle- 
gories, and  a  spiritual  meaning  which  a  passage  did  not  contain  was 
read  into  it.  The  incident  of  the  ox  treading  out  the  corn,  which  in 
its  original  connection  was  a  law  for  the  protection  of  animals,  was 
used  by  Paul  as  an  argument  to  prove  that  apostles  should  be  supported. 
He  said  it  was  not  for  the  oxen  that  God  cared,  but  he  was  thinking 
of  those  who  should  preach  the  gospel,  and  he  was  providing  for  their 
support.  Paul  used  the  Scriptures  very  freely  in  the  case  of  the  bond 
woman  and  the  free  woman.  He  read  his  doctrine  back  into  the  histori- 
cal incident,  and  he  felt  free  to  use  it  in  a  manner  that  would  accom- 
plish his  purpose.  He  did  not  feel  that  he  was  obligated  to  correctly 
represent  the  historical  incident  in  all  its  details,  for  it  was  the  children 
of  Sarah,  rather  than  the  children  of  Hagar,  that  were  really  in  bondage 
to  the  law. 


/ 


168  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Paul  made  many  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  support  of 
moral  principles  which  he  was  seeking  to  enforce,  and  of  spiritual  ideals 
which  he  was  holding  up  before  Christians,  and  in  most  of  these  quota- 
tions he  was  true  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  passage.  In  proving 
his  doctrines  he  usually  made  one  or  more  quotations  from  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  ordinarily  he  correctly  interpreted  the  passages  used.  His 
rabbinical  method  of  interpretation,  however,  enabled  him  to  use  these 
passages  very  freely,  and  he  sometimes  changed  their  meaning  absolutely. 
Passages  which  were  not  Messianic  were  used  in  a  Messianic  sense. 
Passages  which  did  not  originally  have  any  connection  with  the  Gen- 
tiles were  used  to  prove  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  He  used  the  Old 
Testament  account  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  to  prove  his  doc- 
,  trine  of  justification  by  faith.  He  was  able  to  do  that,  because  in 
t  the  Genesis  account  of  the  first  promise  to  Abraham  of  descendants,  it 
'^s  said:  "And  he  believed  in  Jehovah;  and  he  reckoned  it  to  him  for 
righteousness "  (Gen.  15:6).  This  passage,  however,  does  not  refer  to 
the  covenant  with  Abraham.  This  is  found  in  Genesis  17:9-14,  and 
circumcision  is  the  requirement  for  one  who  would  be  included  under  the 
covenant.  By  the  act  of  circumcision  one  entered  into  covenant  rela- 
tion with  God,  and  the  uncircumcised  person  was  to  be  cut  off  from  his 
people.  Paul,  by  a  rabbinical  method  of  interpretation,  sought  to  prove 
that  faith  and  not  circumcision,  was  the  basis  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham.  Because  the  promise  was  made  to  Abraham  before  he  had 
been  circumcised,  Paul  argued  that  he  was  justified  by  faith.  That 
being  true,  it  is  those  who  have  faith,  rather  than  those  who  have  been 
circumcised,  that  are  the  real  children  of  Abraham.  In  this  interpreta- 
tion, Paul  was  not  seeking  to  find  out  the  real  meaning  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment; he  was  using  it  to  prove  his  doctrine,  and  in  doing  this,  he  read 
back  into  it  what  he  wanted  to  find. 

In  his  effort  to  prove  that  the  promise  was  not  made  to  the  lineal 
descendants  of  Abraham,  Paul  reached  the  climax  of  his  rabbinical  meth- 
od of  interpreting  Scripture.  The  promise  was  to  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  and  Paul  argued  that,  as  seed  is  singular,  it  is  evident  that  it 
refers,  not  to  many,  but  to  one,  which  is  Christ.  The  Genesis  passage 
which  Paul  had  in  mind,  referred  to  peoples,  and  not  to  the  Messiah, 
and  in  Rom.  4:18,  he  made  it  refer  to  nations,  although  he  had  stated 
in  his  letter  to  the  Galatians  that  it  could  not  have  this  meaning. 

In  his  argument  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Romans,  Paul  used,  for  the 
purpose  of  condemning  the  law,  statements  which  in  their  original  con- 
nection exalt  the  law.    He  sought  to  Hberate  the  Jews  from  the  law 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  169 

and  unite  them  to  Christ  by  quoting  passages  which  were  intended  to  i 
bind  them  to  the  law,  and  to  accomplish  his  purpose,  he  substituted  ' 
faith  where  law  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  passage. 

It  is  very  evident  that  Paul  used  the  Old  Testament  to  prove  the 
convictions  to  which  he  had  been  led  through  experience.  Sometimes 
he  found  passages  that  were  suited  to  his  purpose,  and  sometimes  by 
rabbinical  methods  of  interpretation  he  read  into  the  Old  Testament 
the  idea  which  he  wanted  to  use.^  Paul  was  probably  unconscious 
of  the  fact  that  he  was  doing  violence  to  the  Scriptures,  and  he  must  have 
felt  that  he  was  being  led  by  the  Spirit  in  the  interpretations  which 
he  made 
b.  Paul's  estimate  of  the  Old  Testament. 

In  discussing  what  the  Old  Testament  meant  to  Paul,  it  is  impossible 
to  speak  with  absolute  certainty.  There  are  several  possibilities,  and 
it  is  easy  to  find  statements  in  his  writings  to  substantiate  any  one  of 
them. 

(a)  Of  no  authoritative  value  for  the  Christian. 

There  is  a  possibility  that  Paul  may  have  regarded  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  as  being  of  no  value  for  the  Christian,  except  as  they 
show  how  God  was  preparing  the  way  for  Christ.  In  defending  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  in  Christ,  he  did  say  that  Christ  had 
taken  the  law  out  of  the  way.  It  is  true,  Paul  used  the  law  in  different 
senses.  He  sometimes  used  it  as  the  Mosaic  code;  and  he  sometimes 
used  it  as  the  whole  Old  Testament  system;  and  he  sometimes  used  it 
as  the  sense  of  right  which  is  written  in  the  heart.  It  is  not  probable 
that  Paul  was  thinking  merely  of  the  Mosaic  code  when  he  said  Christ 
had  freed  men  from  the  law,  or  that  he  meant  to  separate  the  cere- 
monial law  from  the  moral  law.  It  seems  that  he  was  thinking  of 
the  whole  Old  Testament  system.  But  Paul  could  not  have  felt  that 
the  law  of  Moses  had  no  value  for  Christians,  for  he  frequently  quoted 
it  as  authoritative  to  prove  his  arguments. 

(b)  Of  absolute  authority  for  Christians. 

There  is  a  possibility  that  Paul  may  have  regarded  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scripture  as  being  of  absolute  authority  for  Christians.     He 

^A.  Sabatier  (V  Apotre  Paid,  1896,  p.  74;  Eng.  trans.,  1906,  p.  87)  says:  'It 
was  not  from  the  Old  Testament,  not  by  way  exegesis,  that  the  apostle  obtained  the 
ground  on  which  his  doctrine  rests.  If  his  faith  depends  on  his  exegesis,  his  exegesis 
depends  still  more  on  his  faith.  His  convictions  are  not  the  result  of  his  bold  method 
of  interpretation;  that  method  can  only  be  explained  by  the  new  convictions,  which 
of  necessity  gave  rise  to  it." 


170  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

undoubtedly  read  the  Scriptures  privately,  and  encouraged  other  Chris- 
tians to  read  them.  He  undoubtedly  read  them  in  the  churches,  and 
encouraged  other  churches  to  read  them.  He  was  constantly  quoting 
from  the  Old  Testament  in  his  writings,  and  he  reached  the  climax  in 
many  an  argument  with  a  ''thus  saith  the  law,"  and  when  he  used  that 
expression,  he  did  it  in  such  a  manner  that  it  indicated  that  he  meant 
it  to  be  authoritative.  But  there  are  many  things  in  the  writings  of 
Paul  which  make  it  evident  that  while  he  regarded  the  Old  Testament  as 
authoritative  for  him  and  for  others,  there  was  in  reahty  another  author- 
ity which  was  more  vital  than  the  Old  Testament. 

(c)  Two  conflicting  theories  of  the  Old  Testament. 

There  is  a  possibiHty  that  Paul  may  have  had  two  conflicting  theories 
in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  one  inherited  from  the 
past,  and  the  other  the  result  of  Christian  experience,  and  that  he  did 
not  realize  the  conflict  between  them.  As  a  result  of  the  feelings  which 
he  inherited  from  Judaism,  he  regarded  the  Scriptures  as  having  been 
inspired  of  God,  and  hence  authoritative;  but  his  experience  had  con- 
vinced him  that  the  Christian  is  living  under  a  higher  law,  the  guidance 
Vof  the  Spirit.  The  one  who  is  united  to  Christ  by  faith  is  freed  from 
the  law,  and  the  law  no  longer  has  dominion  over  him.  He  is  to  follow 
the  leading  of  faith  and  love.  The  love  of  Christ  is  to  be  the  con- 
straining power  in  his  life,  and  he  is  to  do  the  things  to  which  love  leads 
him.  The  law  of  brotherly  love  is  to  guide  him  in  his  attitude  toward 
others,  and  this  love  will  lead  him  to  fulfill  the  whole  law.  Under  the 
influence  of  his  experience  Paul  urged  Christians  to  follow  the  leading 
of  the  Spirit  and  bring  forth  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  in  their  lives;  and 
under  the  influence  of  his  Jewish  inheritance,  from  which  he  was  never 
entirely  free,  he  quoted  the  Scriptures  as  authoritative  and  urged  Chris- 
tians to  heed  their  admonitions. 

(d)  Not  the   basis  of  justification,  but   spiritual,  and   prophetically 
authoritative. 

There  is  a  possibiUty  that  Paul  may  have  felt  that  the  law,  or  the 

Old  Testament  system,  was  not  the  basis  of  justification,  but  that  it 

contained  a  spiritual  or  prophetical  message  which  was  valuable  for 

all  time,  and  which  was  of  special  value  for  his  own  day.    This  theory 

seems  to  best  solve  all  the  problems  and  meet  all  the  conditions  con- 

{  nected  with  Paul's  use  of  the  Old  Testament.    Paul  regarded  the  law 

1  and  the  gospel  as  being  parts  of  the  divine  plan,  and  he  felt  there  was  a 

\  spiritual  content  in  the  law  which  the  Jews  had  missed;  hence  the  gos- 

l  pel  was  the  completion  of  this  spiritual  message  which  was  not  com- 


/ 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  l7l 

prehended  by  the  Jews.  God  had  intended  that  justification  during 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation  should  be  by  faith,  but  the  Jews  had 
sought  a  righteousness  of  their  own  on  the  basis  of  law,  and  God  was 
displeased  with  them.  BeHeving  the  law  had  a  spiritual  content,  which 
the  gospel  fulfilled,  he  could  use  it  to  substantiate  the  gospel  truths. 
Paul  felt  that  the  things  which  were  happening  in  his  own  day  were 
prefigured  in  the  Scriptures,  and  he  believed  the  things  that  were  writ- 
ten in  the  Scriptures  were  for  the  Christian's  admonition.^ 

In  his  attempt  to  make  the  Old  Testament  support  his  Christian 
experience,  Paul  may  have  deliberately  changed  the  meaning  of  the  Old 
Testament.  He  may  have  been  conscious  of  the  fact  that  he  was 
reading  his  own  thought  back  into  it,  and  that  he  was  changing  its  origi- 
nal meaning  when  he  did  this.  That,  however,  does  not  seem  probable, 
as  he  would  have  known  that  there  would  be  objection  to  his  method  and 
that  his  argument  would  be  weakened  rather  than  strengthened. 

It  is  very  probable  that  Paul  unconsciously  changed  the  meaning 
of  the  Old  Testament  to  make  it  substantiate  the  truths  to  which  his 
Christian  experience  had  led  him.  Although  he  beUeved  Christ  had 
freed  men  from  the  law  and  had  placed  them  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Spirit,  yet  he  spiritualized  the  law,  and  by  means  of  rabbinical  methods 
of  interpretation,  he  read  back  into  it  what  he  wanted  to  find  and  used 
it  as  authoritative.  Paul's  religion  was  not  based  upon  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. God  did  not  to  speak  to  him  out  of  a  book;  but  he  spoke  to 
him  through  his  Spirit.  And  yet,  inasmuch  as  Christianity  was  the 
fulfillment  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Old  Testament  itself  could  be  used 
as  proof  of  the  message  of  the  Spirit. 

The  Relation  of  Experience  to  the  Life  and  Thought  of  the 
Mediterranean  World 
It  was  significant  that  Paul  was  born  in  Tarsus,  which  was  one  of 
the  most  cosmopolitan  cities  of  the  Mediterranean  world.'    Not  only 

•  A.  Sabatier  (The  Apostle  Paul,  1906,  pp.  86  ff.)  was  not  far  from  Paul's  position 
when  he  said:  "If  the  Old  Covenant  ceased  to  exist  as  an  economy  of  salvation,  it 
became  all  the  more  important  as  a  preparation  and  a  prophecy.  ...  He  may 
be  said  to  have  read  the  Old  Testament  books  with  the  eyes  of  a  Christian  and  the 
penetration  of  a  rabbi.  Everything  in  this  long  history  of  God's  people  became  pro- 
phecy; its  personages  and  events  equally  so  with  its  discourses.  Its  language  became 
transfigured;  the  spiritual  meaning  shone  forth  through  the  veil  of  the  literal  sense." 

^  Adolf  Deissmann  (Patdus,  eine  Kultur  und  religions geschichtliche  Skizze,  1911, 
pp.  23  f.;  Eng.  trans.,  1912,  p.  35)  says:  "The  apostle  of  the  nations  comes  from  a 
classical  seat  of  international  intercourse,  and  his  home  itself  was  to  him  from  child- 
hood a  microcosmos,  in  which  the  forces  of  the  great  ancient  cosmos  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean world  were  all  represented." 


172  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHOMTY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

did  Paul  spend  his  early  life  in  Tarus,  but  he  probably  made  that  city 
the  center  of  his  missionary  activities  in  Syria  and  Cilicia.  It  would 
have  been  impossible  for  him  to  have  lived  in  contact  with  this  cos- 
mopolitan world,  either  as  a  Jew  or  as  a  Christian,  and  not  be  influenced 
by  it.  Paul's  missionary  activities  kept  him  in  close  touch  with  this 
world  where  all  sorts  of  religious  and  philosophic  ideas  were  mingling. 
His  citizenship  and  the  public  life  he  was  living  brought  him  into  vital 
touch  with  the  Empire,  and  he  must  have  been  familiar  with  the  Em- 
peror-Cult and  with  these  other  religions  and  philosophies  which  helped 
to  constitute  the  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world,  which 
was  his  environment. 

Paul  derived  many  important  elements  of  his  thinking  from  his 
environment.  Anything  from  this  environment  which  became  a  part 
of  his  experience  and  enriched  his  conception  of  Christianity  was  accepted 
as  truth,  and  everything  which  contradicted  his  experience  was  rejected 
and  condemned.  He  used  for  the  purpose  of  illustration,  and  in  a 
manner  that  was  natural  to  him,  the  Grecian  games,  and  these  were  an 
abomination  to  the  Jews.  There  is  so  much  in  common  between  Paul 
and  some  of  the  Greek  philosophers  that  many  scholars  think  Paul  must 
have  been  influenced  by  their  writings.  There  is  so  much  similarity 
between  Paul  and  Seneca,  who  were  contemporaries,  that  many  writers 
have  felt  that  one  must  have  been  influenced  by  the  other.  It  is  more 
probable,  however,  that  both  were  influenced  by  the  spirit  of  their  age, 
and  that  they  were  independent  of  each  other.  Paul  believed  the  Gen- 
tile world  had  received  truth,  and  he  also  beUeved  this  truth  had  come 
from  God. 

Paul  was  influenced  in  his  terminology  by  the  life  and  thought  of 
the  world  in  which  he  lived.  There  are  many  significant  expressions 
in  his  writings  that  were  the  common  property  of  the  age.  These 
expressions  were  used,  not  only  by  the  philosophers  and  reUgious  teachers, 
but  by  the  great  mass  of  common  people  as  well.  These  terms  expressed 
in  a  general  way  the  reHgious  convictions  of  all,  but  each  one  put  his 
own  content  into  them.  They  did  not  mean  the  same  for  all  groups. 
Paul  had  lived  in  this  world  so  long,  and  had  come  into  such  vital  touch 
with  it,  that  this  terminology  had  become  his,  and  as  his  converts  were 
familiar  with  it,  he  could  best  express  himself  by  using  it.  His  expe- 
rience guided  him  in  the  use  which  he  made  of  this  terminology,  and 
consequently  he  put  a  new  content  into  much  of  it. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  173 

Anathemas,  like  that  which  Paul  pronounced  upon  those  who  love 
not  the  Lord  (I  Cor.  16:22)  were  common  in  his  day.®  The  curse  which 
Paul  commanded  the  Corinthians  to  pronounce  upon  the  fornicator 
was  common  in  the  thought  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world,  and  without 
any  further  explanation,  the  Corinthians  would  understand  what  he 
meant  for  them  to  do.  Paul's  earnest  desire  to  have  the  thorn  removed 
from  his  flesh  (II  Cor.  12:8)  is  duplicated  by  Greek  inscriptions.  There 
is  a  similar  expression  in  an  inscription  by  M.  Julius  Apellas  indicating 
his  cure  at  the  shrine  of  Asculapius  at  Epidaurus:  "And  concerning 
this  thing  I  besought  the  god."* 

It  is  quite  likely  that  Paul  was  influenced  by  the  thought  of  the 
Graeco-Roman  world  in  his  discussion  of  the  struggle  between  the 
flesh  and  the  spirit.  The  Platonist  regarded  the  body  as  evil,  believed 
the  soul  was  imprisoned  in  it,  and  that  it  was  contaminated  by  this 
imprisonment.  Paul  must  have  been  familiar  with  their  behefs,  for 
the  philosophers  had  proclaimed  their  doctrines  upon  the  street  corners, 
and  the  common  people  heard  them  frequently.  Paul's  inheritance 
from  the  thought  of  his  day  was  modified  by  his  own  experience,  and 
hence  he  sometimes  put  a  content  into  the  terms  which  he  used  which 
was  foreign  to  the  thought  of  the  Greeks.  He  argued  that  while  sin 
dwells  in  the  flesh  the  flesh  can  be  overcome,  and  the  body  can  be  made 
the  dwelling  place  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  argued  that  instead  of  the 
body  being  the  instrument  of  sin,  it  can  be  consecrated  to  God,  and 
can  be  made  the  instrument  of  righteousness. 

Paul  was  influenced  by  the  thought  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world  in 
his  conception  of  the  Christian  mysteries.  In  the  mystery-cults  there 
were  certain  secrets  which  were  revealed  to  the  initiated,  but  those 
who  had  not  passed  through  the  initiation  were  not  permitted  to  know 
these  secret  mysteries.  These  mysteries  played  a  prominent  part  in 
the  thought  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world.  Those  to  whom  these  mys- 
teries had  been  revealed  were  greatly  influenced  by  them.  The  posses- 
sion of  them  was  the  key  to  a  new  Hfe,  and  it  was  the  pledge  of  immor- 
tality. Paul  must  have  been  familiar  with  these  mysteries  before  he 
became  a  Christian,  and  his  missionary  activities  had  brought  him  into 
close  touch  with  them.  He  spent  much  time  in  Ephesus,  and  Ephesus 
was  one  of  the  centers  of  the  mystery-cults.    He  spent  much  time  in 

« Adolf  Deissman  {Licht  vom  Osten,  1906,  p.  219;  Eng.  trans.  1910,  p.  305)  quotes 
the  epitaph  from  Halicarnassus  which  is  very  similar:  "If  any  man  shall  attempt 
to  take  away  a  stone  ...  let  him  be  accursed." 

» See  Licht  vom  Osten,  1906,  p.  223;  Eng.  trans.,  1910,  pp.  310  f. 


174  CONCEPTION  or  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

Corinth,  and  the  Mysteries  of  Eleusis  were  celebrated  on  the  road  over 
which  he  must  have  passed  when  he  went  from  Athens  to  that  city.  It 
is  significant  that  Paul  designated  what  he  was  imparting  to  those  who 
were  able  to  receive  it  as  the  divine  mystery.  He  said  he  and  his  co- 
laborers  were  "stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God"  (I  Cor.4:l).  He  said 
the  man,  speaking  in  a  tongue,  is  speaking  mysteries  in  the  Spirit  (I 
Cor.  14:2).  He  referred  to  the  resurrection  as  a  mystery  which  he  was 
going  to  make  known  to  them  (I  Cor.  15:51).  He  regarded  the  doc- 
trine of  the  partial  rejection  of  Israel,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  in 
the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  and  then  the  salvation  of  Israel,  as  a  mystery 
(Rom.  11:25).  Paul  evidently  regarded  these  mysteries  as  being  well 
worth  knowing,  but  he  said,  if  a  person  should  know  all  mysteries,  but 
not  have  love,  it  would  profit  him  nothing  (I  Cor.  13:2).  Paul  felt  he 
was  speaking  "a  wisdom  not  of  this  world";  it  was  "God's  wisdom  in  a 
mystery";  it  was  "the  wisdom  that  hath  been  hidden,  which  God  fore- 
ordained before  the  worlds. "  The  rulers  of  this  world  did  not  know  this 
wisdom,  for  if  they  had  known  it,  they  would  not  have  crucified  the 
Lord  of  glory.  This  "wisdom  in  a  mystery"  was  something  which  the 
eye  saw  not,  and  the  ear  heard  not;  it  was  something  which  had  not 
entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  but  it  had  been  revealed  by  God  through 
the  Spirit.  Paul  said  he  revealed  this  mystery  only  to  them  that  were 
full-grown.  The  natural  man  is  not  able  to  receive  these  things,  because 
they  must  be  spiritually  judged.  These  things  can  be  received  only 
by  him  who  is  spiritual  (I  Cor.  2:6-10). 

It  is  significant  that  Paul  designated  these  deeper,  spiritual 
truths,  which  he  was  reveahng  to  those  who  were  able  to  receive  them, 
as  divine  mysteries;  and  that  he  used  the  same  terminology  as  did  the 
mystery-cults  to  designate  those  who  were  able  to  receive  the  mysteries, 
and  those  who  were  not  able  to  receive  them.  Those  who  were  capable 
of  receiving  the  divine  wisdom  were  the  spiritual,  or  the  perfect,  the 
TcXctos;  while  those  who  were  not  capable  of  receiving  it  were  the 
uninitiated,  or  the  tStwrT/s.  Although  Paul  used  the  terminology  that  was 
current  in  his  day,  he  sometimes  put  a  Christian  content  into  it,  and 
this  new  content  was  the  result  of  his  own  experience.  The  mystery 
which  he  revealed  was  the  result  of  his  own  relation  to  Christ,  and  he 
regarded  this  as  the  message  of  the  Spirit,  and  he  felt  that  only  those 
who  were  Hving  the  spiritual  life  were  worthy  to  receive  it. 

Paul  was  influenced,  in  his  conception  of  the  union  of  the  behever 
with  Christ,  by  the  thought  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world.  The  mystery- 
cults  had  an  initiatory  rite  which  was  in  the  nature  of  a  baptism.    This 


CONCEPTION  OP  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  175 

was  supposed  to  bring  the  initiated  into  fellowship  with  the  deity. 
They  also  had  a  sacred  meal  which  enabled  the  one  who  participated 
in  it  to  partake  of  the  deity.  It  was  believed  in  the  Dionysus-cult 
that,  by  eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of  the  victim  in  which 
the  god  was  supposed  to  be  incarnate,  the  life  of  the  god  entered  into 
the  individual.  It  seems  almost  certain  that  Paul  was  influenced 
in  his  conception  of  the  ordinances  of  the  church  by  these  Greek  ideas. 
He  taught  that  the  individual  is  baptised  into  Christ,  and  thus  puts  on 
Christ.  The  Corinthians  were  baptising  for  their  dead,  and  Paul  did 
not  condemn  the  practice.  He  taught  that  the  cup  is  a  communion 
of  the  body  of  Christ.  He  told  the  Corinthians  that  many  of  them  were 
sickly,  and  some  of  their  number  had  died,  because  they  had  partaken 
without  discerning  the  Lord's  body.  Paul  had  that  thought  of  commu- 
nion with  the  deity  in  mind,  when  he  admonished  the  Corinthians 
not  to  participate  in  idol-worship,  for  the  Gentiles  sacrifice  to  demons, 
and  not  to  God,  and  he  did  not  want  the  Christians  to  have  communion 
with  demons.  The  Gentiles  beUeved  they  had  fellowship  with  the  deity 
when  they  partook  of  the  feast  held  in  the  temple  of  the  deity.  Paul 
accepted  their  belief,  but  he  said  it  was  with  demons  that  they  in  reality 
had  fellowship,  because  he  regarded  the  pagan  deities  as  demons. 

Under  the  influence  of  the  Greek  mysteries  Paul  transformed  the 
primitive  conception  of  baptism  into  a  mystical  death  and  burial  which 
unites  one  to  Christ;  and  he  transformed  the  primitive  conception  of 
a  fellowship  meal  into  a  communion  with  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 
His  own  Christian  experience,  however,  guided  him  in  the  new  content 
which  he  put  into  these  ordinances.  He  connected  faith  with  these 
mystic  rites  in  a  very  vital  manner.  The  one  who  is  baptized  has  faith 
in  Christ,  and  it  is  faith  along  with  baptism  which  unites  one  to  his 
Lord.  The  one  who  comes  to  the  sacred  meal  is  united  to  Christ  by 
faith,  and  when  he  discerns  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  that  faith  is 
strengthened.  Paul  put  a  Christian  content  into  these  sacred  rites,  but 
he  still  regarded  them  as  mysteries  which  brought  the  worshipper  into 
vital  relationship  with  the  Master. 

The  thought  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world  influenced  Paul  in  his 
conception  of  the  possession  of  the  Spirit.  The  one  who  was  initiated 
into  the  mysteries  was  brought  into  such  close  fellowship  with  the 
deity  that  the  deity  sometimes  took  possession  of  him.  The  one  who 
was  possessed  by  the  deity  had  various  ecstatic  experiences,  such  as 
speaking  with  tongues,  and  being  carried  out  of  one's  self.  The  Corin- 
thian Christians,  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  spoke  with  tongues, 


176  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

and  did  various  other  things  which  were  pecuUar  to  those  who  were  acting 
under  the  Spirit's  power.  Paul  recognized  these  phenomena  as  being 
similar  to  the  ones  witnessed  among  the  pagans,  the  main  diflference 
being  that  the  Christians  were  possessed  by  the  divine  Spirit  while 
the  pagans  were  possessed  by  demons.  The  attitude  of  the  individual 
towards  Jesus  determined  whether  he  was  possessed  by  a  good  or  an 
evil  spirit.  Although  Paul  was  influenced  in  his  conception  of  the 
indwelling  Spirit  by  the  thought  of  the  Greek  world,  yet  there  are 
vital  differences  between  his  thought  and  that  of  the  Greek  mysteries. 
The  ecstatic  manifestations  were  fundamental  in  the  Greek  mysteries, 
but  they  were  only  incidental  for  Paul,  and  he  urged  that  these  should 
be  subordinated  to  the  manifestations  that  helped  others.  While  the 
life  and  thought  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world  helped  to  determine  Paul's 
experience  of  spirit-possession,  yet  his  whole  experience  as  a  Christian 
modified  this  and  made  it  very  different  from  what  it  was  for  a  Greek. 
Paul  did  not  accept  everything  which  was  presented  to  him  by  his 
environment;  if  he  had  done  this  he  would  have  been  a  pagan.  Paul 
opposed  much  of  the  life  and  thought  of  the  Mediterranean  world;  he 
regarded  it  as  pagan  and  believed  it  was  contrary  to  the  will  of  God. 
He  may  have  been  unconscious  of  the  fact  that  he  had  taken  over  any 
of  the  Greek  ideas,  for  they  had  become  a  part  of  his  experience,  and 
he  accepted  them  without  being  concerned  as  to  the  source  from  which 
he  had  derived  them.  Whatever  there  was  in  the  hfe  and  thought  of  the 
Greeks  which  became  a  part  of  Paul's  experience  was  accepted  by  him 
as  truth,  and  anything  which  was  foreign  to  his  experience  was  rejected 
by  him.  It  is  very  evident  that  experience  was  the  standard  according 
to  which  Paul  evaluated  the  life  and  thought  of  the  world  in  which 
he  Hved,  and  inasmuch  as  his  Christian  experience  was  interpreted  as 
a  following  of  the  leading  of  the  divine  Spirit,  he  believed  his  con- 
clusions  had    the   sanction   of   the    Spirit. 

The  Relation  of  Experience  to  the  Life  and  Thought  of 
THE  Church  into  which  he  Entered 

When  Paul  entered  upon  his  Christian  career  he  had  the  heritage 
of  primitive  Christianity,  and  he  undoubtedly  took  up  much  of  this 
primitive  Christian  thought.  There  is  no  reason  for  believing  that  he 
did  not,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  derive  from  the  primitive  Chris- 
tian group  the  facts  and  doctrines  which  he  held  in  common  with  them. 
The  importance  which  he  attached  to  primitive  Christian  tradition  can 
best  be  discussed  under  two  heads,  the  importance  of  the  life  and  teach- 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  177 

ings  of  Jesus,  and  the  importance  of  the  hfe  and  thought  of  the  primitive 
Christian  community. 

The  Life  and  Teachings  of  Jesus 

During  the  time  when  Paul  preached  and  wrote,  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  and  the  story  of  his  hfe  were  being  handed  down  in  oral  form, 
but  there  were  perhaps  some  written  documents  in  addition  to  the  oral 
traditions,  and  Paul  must  have  gained  his  knowledge  of  the  historical 
data  of  the  hfe  of  Jesus  from  these  sources. 

Paul  sometimes  quoted  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  final  authority. 
In  estabhshing  his  right  to  claim  support  from  the  churches  where  he 
was  laboring,  he  stated,  as  the  climax  of  his  argument,  the  fact  that 
Christ  had  ordained  it.  Just  as  God  had  ordained  that  those  who  min- 
ister in  the  temple  should  live  of  the  temple,  so  Christ  had  ordained  that 
those  who  preach  the  gospel  should  live  of  the  gospel.  Perhaps  the 
order  of  Paul's  argument  indicates  the  importance  which  he  attached 
to  the  various  elements.  That  which  was  fundamental  to  him  was  his 
own  sense  of  right,  and  to  prove  this  he  arranged  his  argument  in  the 
order  of  importance.  He  first  used  illustrations  from  life,  and  he  then 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  support  was  conmianded  by  the  Old 
Testament.  This  sense  of  right,  which  was  supported  by  illustrations 
from  life  and  by  the  commandment  of  the  Old  Testament,  was  also  com- 
manded by  the  Lord  himself;  and  it  is  evident  that  he  regarded  this 
commandment  as  final  authority. 

In  comforting  the  Thessalonians  who  were  troubled  about  the  loss 
which  their  Christian  dead  would  sustain  at  the  coming  of  Christ,  Paul 
wrote  with  assurance.  He  said  those  who  were  alive  at  the  coming  of 
Christ  would  not  precede  them  that  are  asleep,  and  he  said  he  was 
making  this  statement  by  the  word  of  the  Lord.  He  must  have  had 
in  mind  some  traditional  statement  about  the  Parousia  which  he  accepted 
as  having  come  from  Jesus,  and  he  regarded  it  as  final  authority,  and  he 
felt  that  it  should  remove  all  the  doubts  of  the  Thessalonians. 

In  his  discussion  of  marriage  Paul  gave  definite  commandment 
concerning  some  phases,  and  he  said  he  was  expressing  the  command- 
ment of  the  Lord  on  these  matters;  but  concerning  other  phases  he  gave 
his  own  opinion,  and  he  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  did  not  have 
any  commandment  of  the  Lord  covering  these  points.  One  must  have 
the  feeling  when  he  reads  the  seventh  chapter  of  I  Corinthians  that 
Paul  spoke  more  positively,  when  he  knew  some  teaching  of  Jesus  that 
covered  the  point  at  issue,  than  when  he  was  merely  expressing  his  own 


178  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 

conviction.  On  the  question  of  the  remarriage  of  those  who  had  sepa- 
rated from  their  companions  Paul  spoke  with  decision,  for  he  was 
stating  the  commandment  of  the  Lord.  He  evidently  knew  some  teach- 
ing of  Jesus  that  covered  that  point.  But  on  the  question  of  the  mar- 
riage of  virgins  he  did  not  have  any  commandment  of  the  Lord,  and  so 
he  expressed  his  own  opinion,  as  one  that  had  obtained  mercy  of  the 
Lord  to  be  faithful. 

Paul  urged  the  Galatians  to  fulfill  the  law  of  Christ  by  bearing 
one  another's  burdens,  and  it  is  very  evident  that  it  was  Christ's  law 
of  love  to  which  he  referred.  It  seems  that  Christ's  law  of  love  was 
made  prominent  in  the  early  church.  In  II  John  (v.  5)  there  is  a  ref- 
erence to  the  commandment  which  they  had  from  the  beginning  that  they 
should  love  one  another,  and  in  James  {3:S)  the  command  to  love  one 
another  is  called  "the  royal  law."  Christ's  law  of  love  was  made 
fundamental  in  the  writings  of  Paul.  It  was  the  principle  which  was  to 
guide  man  in  his  relation  to  others.  This  law  was  absolute  and  the 
Christian  was  to  be  controlled  by  it.  He  was  to  be  guided  by  it  in 
his  treatment  of  the  erring  brother.  He  was  to  be  guided  by  it  in  his 
use  of  spiritual  gifts.  He  was  to  do  only  those  things  which  would 
edify  others.  He  was  to  be  guided  by  this  law  in  his  eating.  If  eat- 
ing meat  would  cause  a  brother  to  stumble,  he  should  refrain,  for  a 
Christian  would  not  be  walking  according  to  love,  if  he  should  do  any- 
thing to  offend  a  weaker  brother. 

In  the  few  passages  cited  above  Paul  emphasized  the  teachings  of 
Jesus,  but  the  ultimate  authority  for  him  was  not  what  Jesus  said  or 
did.  His  own  experience  of  the  living  Christ  was  of  more  consequence 
to  him  than  his  knowledge  of  the  Christ  of  the  past.  He  was  following 
the  leading  of  the  glorified  Christ  whom  he  had  come  to  know  at  the 
time  of  his  conversion,  and  he  had  become  so  vitally  united  to  the 
Master  through  faith  that  he  was  living  within  him.  Because  he  had 
Christ's  Spirit  he  knew  his  will,  and  he  insisted  on  obedience  to  this 
will.  If  he  knew  some  teaching  of  Jesus  that  would  serve  his  purpose 
in  emphasizing  the  conviction  to  which  he  had  come  through  experience, 
he  used  it;  but  he  does  not  seem  to  have  looked  for  such  teaching,  or 
to  have  been  anxious  about  it.  His  chief  concern  was  to  know  God's 
will,  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was  one  of  the  means  through  which 
that  will  was  expressed. 

The  Primitive  Christian  Community 
Many  of  Paul's  doctrines  were  derived  from  the  primitive  Chris- 
tian community.     Before  his  conversion  he  had  regarded  the  members  of 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  l79 

this  primitive  Christian  group  as  deluded  fanatics.  He  had  believed 
they  were  opposed  to  God,  and  he  had  felt  he  was  doing  God's  will  when 
he  was  persecuting  them.  He  had  learned  much  about  the  behefs  of 
the  Christians  from  those  whom  he  was  persecuting,  but  his  attitude 
had  been  one  of  opposition.  His  conversion  changed  everything,  and 
in  the  light  of  this  new  experience,  he  realized  that  the  Christians  were 
right  and  that  he  was  the  one  who  was  opposing  God.  He  undoubtedly 
accepted  their  traditions  and  their  conception  of  the  Christian  life  as 
the  basis  of  his  own  thinking,  but  many  influences  combined  with  his 
own  experience  of  the  Christian  life  to  vitally  change  many  of  these 
conceptions. 

Before  his  conversion  Paul  had  heard  about  Jesus  from  the  primi- 
tive Christians,  but  he  did  not  believe  their  statements.  His  own 
experience,  however,  convinced  him  that  they  were  right  in  their  claims, 
and  from  Peter  and  others  he  learned  more  about  the  Master  whom  he 
had  come  to  love.  He  accepted  their  statements  about  Jesus  as  true, 
and  they  became  the  basis  of  his  new  conception  of  Christ.  But  there 
were  other  elements  which  entered  into  Paul's  thinking;  hence  the 
Christology  of  his  writings  is  very  different  from  that  which  he  inherited 
from  the  primitive  Christians;  his  Christology  is  peculiarly  his  own. 
This  primitive  Christian  tradition,  with  his  Jewish  inheritance  and  the 
thought  of  the  world  in  which  he  lived,  were  combined  in  the  mold  of 
his  own  experience,  and  the  result  was  his  conception  of  the  pre-existent 
Christ,  and  of  the  glorified  and  exalted  Christ,  who  is  the  head  of  the 
church,  and  who  dwells  in  them  who  are  united  to  him  by  faith. 

Paul  received  from  the  primitive  Christian  group  the  conception 
of  the  church  which  was  current  at  that  time,  with  its  simple  organi- 
zation and  its  ordinances.  Under  the  influence  of  his  own  experience, 
or  under  the  leading  of  the  divine  Spirit  as  he  interpreted  it,  there 
was  developed  such  a  new  conception  that  many  have  regarded  Paul  as 
the  real  founder  of  the  church.  There  was  developed  such  a  new  con- 
ception of  the  ordinances  that  many  claim  Paul  as  the  originator  of 
these  ordinances. 

The  vital  question  for  Paul  when  he  had  to  face  some  new  situation 
was  not  to  know  what  the  primitive  Christians  thought  or  did;  it  was 
not  even  to  find  out  what  Jesus  said  on  the  point  at  issue;  it  was  rather 
to  seek  to  follow  the  leading  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Spirit,  as  he  interpreted  it,  the  church  developed  to  meet  new 
conditions. 


180  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 


CONCLUSION 

Paul  lived  a  real  life  in  a  real  world.  He  did  not  live  in  a  tight 
compartment  so  that  he  could  not  be  touched  by  the  influences  of  the 
world  about  him,  and  could  thus  be  made  the  passive  instrument  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  Holy  Spirit  did  not  so  dominate  him  that  he  was 
immune  to  the  influences  of  the  life  and  thought  of  his  age.  His  mind 
and  heart  were  receptive  to  helpful  impressions,  regardless  of  the  source 
from  which  they  came.  To  attempt  to  understand  Paul  apart  from 
the  world  in  which  he  lived  is  to  undertake  the  impossible.  To  put 
Paul  in  his  world  and  interpret  him  in  connection  with  the  life  and 
thought  of  his  age  is  to  understand  him.  The  former  method  would 
make  Paulinism  static  and  mechanical;  the  latter  would  make  it  growing 
and  vital.  The  former  would  make  Pauhnism  a  system  according  to 
which  the  church  of  all  time  is  to  conform;  the  latter  would  exalt  the 
Christian  spirit,  as  it  found  expression  in  Paul's  life  and  thought,  and  it 
would  understand  that  it  was  dressed  in  a  Jewish  garb  which  was  modi- 
fied by  the  Mediterranean  world  of  the  first  century,  and  it  would  not 
feel  obligated  to  make  all  ages  conform  to  that  particular  dress.  The 
former  would  make  Paulinism  a  static  norm;  the  latter  would  make  it 
a  living  guide. 

Religion  was  for  Paul  a  constant  development;  it  could  not  have 
been  otherwise  if  he  lived  a  real  life  in  a  real  world.  He  was  born 
in  a  Jewish  home,  raised  in  a  Gentile  city,  and  educated  in  a  rabbinical 
school,  and  his  conception  of  Judaism  must  have  been  constantly  chang- 
ing, even  before  he  had  heard  of  Jesus.  He  came  into  contact  with 
Christianity  and  assumed  the  rdle  of  a  persecutor,  and  his  experiences 
with  this  new  religion  shook  his  confidence  in  the  old  faith.  This 
prepared  him  for  the  great  soul  struggle,  which  he  interpreted  as  the 
revelation  of  Christ  in  him.  This,  however,  was  only  the  beginning  of 
his  Christian  experiences.  His  contact  with  the  religious  thought  of 
the  Graeco-Roman  world  modified  his  thinking  along  many  lines,  and 
the  gigantic  task  of  estabUshing  Christianity,  which  had  its  origin  in 
Palestine,  throughout  the  Gentile  world  led  him  to  a  new  evaluation  of 
his  beliefs.  All  these  influences  helped  to  constitute  Paul's  experience, 
and  what  was  true  to  his  experience  at  any  particular  time  was  the 
thing  that  was  vital  to  him.    Anything  which  he  inherited  from  Judaism, 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  1N  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  181 

or  which  came  to  him  from  the  life  and  thought  of  the  world  in  which 
he  lived,  or  from  the  primitive  Christian  group  into  which  he  entered, 
that  became  a  part  of  his  experience,  was  accepted  as  truth.  Anything 
demanded  by  the  great  purpose  which  he  had  before  him  became  a  part 
of  his  experience  and  was  also  accepted  as  truth.  Paul  realized  that 
his  life  was  constantly  united  with  Christ,  and  he  interpreted  his  experi- 
ence as  the  leading  of  the  divine  Spirit.  That  being  true,  his  real 
authority  was  Christ  within.  ^ 

Inasmuch  as  Paul's  experience  was  constantly  changing,  his  standard 
of  authority  was  not  something  static;  it  was  a  developing  standard. 
His  Christ  within  was  a  growing  Christ.  In  the  Ught  of  his  changing 
experiences,  he  constantly  reread  the  Old  Testament  and  put  a  new 
valuation  on  his  inheritance  from  Judaism  and  from  the  life  and  thought 
of  his  world.  His  aim  was  to  forget  the  things  which  are  behind,  and  to 
stretch  forward  to  the  things  which  are  before,  and  to  *' press  on  toward 
the  goal  unto  the  prize  of  the  high  calling  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus. " 


182  CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Adam,  James,  The  Religious  Teachers  of  Greece,  1908. 

Angus,  S.,  The  Environment  of  Early  Christianity,  1915. 

Bacon,  Benj.  W.,  Jesus  or  Christ?    The  Hibbert  Journal  Supplement  for  1909. 

Bailey,  J.  W.,  Elements  of  Paul's  Christology,  1905. 

Bousset,  W.,  Die  Religion  des  Judentums  im  neutestamentlichen  Zeitalter,  1903. 

Bruce,  A.  B.,  St.  Paul's  Conception  of  Christianity,  1894. 

Burton,  E.  D.,  Handbook  of  the  Life  of  Paul,  1904. 

Campbell,  James  H.,  Paul  the  Mystic,  1908. 

Campbell,  R.  J.,  Jesus  or  Christ?    The  Hibbert  Journal  Supplement  for  1909. 

Carpenter,  Principal  J.  E.,  Jesus  or  Christ?    The  Hibbert  JoiUTial  Supplement  for  1909. 

Case,  Shirley  Jackson,  The  Historicity  of  Jesus,  1912. 

The  Evolution  of  Early  Christianity,  1914. 
The  BibUcal  World,  Jan.,  1914. 
Charles,  R.  H.,  The  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament,  two 

vols.,   1913. 
Clemen,  Carl,  Die  Chronologic  der  paulinischen  Brief e  aufs  neue  Untersucht,  1893. 
Cohu,  J.  R.,  St.  Paul  and  Modem  Research,  1911. 
Cone,  Orello,  Paul,  the  Man,  the  Missionary,  and  the  Teacher,  1898. 
Conybeare,  F.  C,  Myth,  Magic,  and  Morals,  1910. 

Drummond,  James,  Jesus  or  Christ?    The  Hibbert  Journal  Supplement  for  1909. 
Deissmann,  Adolf,  Licht  vom  Osten,  1908;  Eng.  trans.,  1910. 

Paulus,    eine    kultur    imd  religionsgeschichtliche   Skizze,    1911; 

Eng.  trans.,  1912. 
Friedlander,  Gerald,  Hellenism  and  Christianity,  1912. 

Gardner,  Percy,  The  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul,  1911.  J 

Heinrici,  C.  F.  Georg.,  Der  erste  Brief  an  die  Korinther,  1880.  Ij 

Herford,  R.  Travers,  Pharisaism,   1912. 
Holtzmann,  O.,  Theologische  Litteratungzeitimg,   1890. 
Kennedy,  H.  A.  A.,  St  Paul's  Conception  of  the  Last  Things,  1904. 

St.  Paul  and  the  Mystery  Religions,  1913. 
Lake,  Kirsopp,  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  1911. 

Loisy,   Alfred,   Hibbert  Journal,   Oct.    1911.  ; 

Mathews,  Shailer,  The  Messianic  Hope  in  the  New  Testament,  1SH)5. 
Matheson,  George,  Spiritual  Development  of  St.  Paul,  1909. 
Moffatt,  James,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  1911. 
Moore,  George  Foot,  History  of  Religions,  1913. 

Pfleiderer,  Otto,  Das  Urchristentum,  1887;  Eng.  trans,  two  vols.  1906,  1909. 
Reitzenstein,  R.,  Die  hellenistischen  Mysterienreligionen,   1910. 
Rostron,  S.  Nowell,  The  Christology  of  St.  Paul,  1912. 
Sabatier,  Auguste,  Les  Religions  D'  Autorite  Et  La  Religion  De  L'Esprit.;  Eng. 

trans.  1904. 

L'Apotre   Paul,    1896;    Eng.    trans.    1906. 
Schiirer,  E.,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi.    4th  ed.  1907; 
Eng.  trans,  of  2nd  ed.  1891. 


CONCEPTION  OF  AUTHORITY  IN  THE  PAULINE  WRITINGS  183 

Schweitzer,  Albert,  Geschichte  der  panlinischen  Forschung,  1911;  Eng.  trans.  1912. 
Spitta,  Friedrich,  Apostelgeschichte  ihre  Quellen  und  der  Geschichtlicher  Wert,  1891. 
Stevens,  George  Barker,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Salvation,  1905. 

The  PauUne  Theology,  1906. 

The  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,   1910. 
Weinel,  Heinrich,  Paulus:  der  Mensch  und  sein  Werk,  1904;  Eng.  trans.  1906. 
Jesus  or  Christ?    The  Hibbert  Journal  Supplement  for  1909. 
Weiss,  Bemhard,  Lehrbuch  der  Einleitimg  in  das  Neue  Testament,  1897. 
Weiss,  J.,  Der  Erste  Korinther  Brief,  1910. 
Weizsacker,  Carl  von..  Das  apostoUsche  der  christlichen  Kirche,  Dritte  Auflage, 

1901;  Eng.   trans.   1894-1895. 
Wrede,  W.  Paulus,  Zweite  Auflage  1907;  Eng.  trans.  1908. 
Encyclopaedia  BibUca. 
Dictionary  of  the  Bible  by  Hastings. 
Jewish  Encyclopedia. 
The  International  Critical  Commentary. 


'^3)^<c!/ 


m7m^ 


'^^         s- 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY— TEL  NO.  642.^3405 

^fSlPlBim^i  This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

aH^  on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Pk  Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


MMl 


0  i>«i4  1 4 


RCQetvgp 


Qnr2;'6s»j64ftj 


«p?n^ 


HStW^Stli 


fNTER-LlBRAR 


LOAN 


FEB  10  1970 


LD2lA-60m-6,'69 
(J9096sl0)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


y^d^c^tu 


^^mf^ 


■ 


